Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 8

Different Types of Karma in Buddhism

I know that according to Buddhism, there are four types of karma (kamma is the pali term) one of which is karma that leads toward nirvana (nibbana is the pali term). But how does one produce the karma that leads toward nirvana? Is merit the same thing? What about stupa veneration or Buddha statues? It would be much apreciated if answers could be from a Theravada perspectives. And if it is at all possible, could someone lead me to some related Suttas? RBTruthSeeker (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I searched for info on "four types of karma" in Buddhism and found there to be many different ways of describing karma, some of which use four types, but I couldn't figure out which system involves "karma that leads toward nirvana". Most seem to focus on the stopping of karma as leading toward nirvana. Could you be more specific about where your four karma system comes from? Some pages that may or may not be relevant: Jhana in Theravada, Dhyāna, Arūpajhāna, and Four stages of enlightenment. Also, this book describes four types of karma on pages 19-20, and 8, but none seem to be specifically leading to nirvana. Pfly (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, merit is not quite the same thing. See merit (Buddhism). I'm surprised Plfy didn't mention our article on Karma in Buddhism, although no fourfold analysis is mentioned there either. Some branches of Buddhism delight in breaking down various concepts into constituent types (mostly as an aide-memoire) and karma is no exception. Among the fourfold divisions (I've taken these from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary) are an analysis with regard to function: regenerative karma (janaka-kamma), supportive karma (upatthambhaka-kamma), counteractive karma (upapitaka-kamma), and destructive karma (upaghataka-kamma). Then there is a breakdown with regard to their result: weighty karma (garuka-kamma), habitual karma (acinnaka-kamma), death-proximate karma (maranasanna-kamma), and stored-up karma (katatta-kamma). Most of this sort of stuff is found in the commentaries rather than the suttas themselves, especially the Visuddhimagga. The only reference to nirvana I can think of in this context is that wholesome karma (kusala-kamma) leads to nirvana and unwholesome karma (akusala-kamma) does not. Both these types of karma are broken down into lists of ten (the ten precepts), which are mentioned many times in the suttas, especially in the Sevitabbasevitabba Sutta (Majjhima-Nikaya 114). For more information you might be interested in Nagapriya's Exploring Karma and Rebirth (ISBN 1-899579-61-3).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Colonies: why did Europeans discover and colonise?

Deleted repeated of question already above.៛ Bielle (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-inserted question moved here from Ref Desk. Misc.. I deleted it in error, being confused by the title.

Why did european countries colonize and discover america, asia and africa? What gave them the advantage of developing sea faring ships and the desire where as africa for instance did nothing of the sort. Why was one more dominant than the other. 193.115.175.247 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Zionist

There are probably as many answers as there are historians. You might find it useful to move this question to the Humanities desk. --68.144.73.245 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to start at our Colonialism article, which discusses the concept of creating colonies and branches off into the history of colonialism as well as many other areas. It looks like a pretty solid starting point. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For one explanation as to Europe's lead in such matters, read the book Guns, Germs and Steel. Corvus cornixtalk 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And you might check out Age of Discovery to think about the specific context of Europe's deciding to go explore and take over the world at that moment. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008

193.115, it's a fairly safe assumption Europe was aware of the existence of Africa and Asia, when Africans and Asians were in the imperial business, not the Europeans! Otherwise, as others have suggested, you should look at the Age of Discovery, Spanish colonization of the Americas along with the History of colonialism and other related articles for a full answer to your question. In terms of technological advancement, military organisation, ship-building and trade Europe was beginning to develop a commanding lead over other parts of the Atlantic sea-world world by the early sixteenth century. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Polynesians colonised Polynesia including New Zealand as late as AD 500. However, they colonised uninhabited islands.
Sleigh (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is wrong. It wasnt just Europeans who discovered and colonised. For example the Chinese went exploring. Its just that european cultural imperialism means that non-european ventures are not transmitted through history and through the media of the time. 80.2.200.28 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

European intervention: why so little, in American Civil War?

Why wasn't there a greater European prescence in the American Civil War, given the stakes? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GeeJo, insofar as I understand the terms of your question, there was certainly sympathy for the Confederate cause among ruling circles in both Britain and France at the outset of the American Civil War. In October 1862, William Ewart Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, went so far as to say that "...there is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and the other leaders of the South have made an army; they are making...a navy; and they have made what is more than either, they have made a nation." It was at this time that there was a strong possibility of Britain and France joining in an offer of mediation, as you will see if you look at Great Britain in the American Civil War. However, after the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam and the subsequent Emancipation Proclamation, the possibility of intervention all but vanished. Besides, France was too heavily involved in trying to prop up Maximilian Habsburg in Mexico to risk alienating Washington any further. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an article on that subject in the little essay-collection book "Why the North Won the Civil War" (which can often be found cheap in used bookstores in the U.S.). The briefest answer is that there was little likelihood of a strong direct European intervention without some consensus among the major European powers, which never materialized. Russia was always against it, France was usually for it, and Britain wavered according to military fluctuations and various diplomatic incidents, but never publicly committed itself to taking action as a matter of formal policy. It was probably a good thing for the Union that the first transatlantic telegraph cable had failed before the war, so that North American news was delayed several weeks before arriving in Europe. AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is "Lady Ann Byron"?

I've been reading some of my grandfathers genealogical research and there is one section that refers to:

"Ann (Maunder) GREGORY (1828-1903), believed to be Lady Ann Byron"

I assumed that Lady Ann Byron was famous in some way, so I did a google search, and Wikipedia check, and have come up completely empty! My grandfather died a few years ago. Can anyone shed any light on it? -- Chuq (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been some people who might correspond to that name, but not to those dates. For example, Anne Isabella "Annabella" Milbanke was the wife of the poet (George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, best known as "Lord Byron"). But her dates are 1792-1860. Anna Ismay Ethel Fitzroy (1884-1966) was the wife of Frederick Ernest Charles Byron, 10th Lord Byron. There was an Anne Molyneux whose husband was John Byron, but he died in 1625. So it's hard to say who, precisely, it was who "believed Ann Maunder Gregory to be Lady Ann Byron", or why. I'm assuming there is some romantic story of faking a death or substituting a birth to go with the supposition; you may want to have a look at Lady Anne Blunt, granddaughter of the poet, whose life might have inspired such a story. Perhaps you can provide more information to go on, or someone else can suggest a likelier possibility. - Nunh-huh 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found the sames names that you found, but as you said, the dates don't line up. The details I have are "Oliver Gregory (1825 - 24 Jan 1902) married Ann Maunder (1828 - 9 Feb 1903)." and the line above "believed to be Lady Ann Byron". They had 16 children between 1847 and 1871. I have found another source online which shows her name as Anne (but no mention of the Lady Byron). -- Chuq (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can be of any real help to you, but you should also tell us what country or location they were in. Your best approach is probably just to try and track down Oliver Gregory and Ann/Anne Maunder, and see if the notation about Byron makes any sense, rather than to try and track down Lady Ann Byron. You could also drop a note to the e-mail of the webmaster of the site you found them on. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tabligh Jamaat

I know that Tabligh Jamaat was formed in Indian Sub-continent and it is practiced by people of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh but nowadays I see people from Somalia and some Arab countries follow this. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the article Tablighi Jamaat you'll find it's a Muslim missionary movement aiming to bring spiritual revival to the world's muslims. First founded in India it spread throughout other muslim countries in the second half of last century and has political and celebrity links though it is not considered a political movement in itself. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mixed black/white Arab

You know how a kid whose parent is white and the other is black is called a Mulatto, which is a Spanish term because of the Spaniards. What about the Arabic term for a kid whose parent is a white and the other is black? and I am asking this because Arab nations of Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and if possible Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, have not only the white population, but also have the black population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the Arab term for that, but there's the "Mixed race" article with lots of links here [1] you might like to scan for yourself. This link [2] to this section of an article called Social interpretations of race that tells you about mulatto. There's another article Moors that gives some Arab-African history before the words "muslim" and "Islam" came along. Hope this helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea of dividing people up into distinct races based on skin color is really unique to European and European-derived cultures. This idea had its origins in the Atlantic slave trade. In the Arab countries, slaves could come in any number of different colors and from many different ethnic backgrounds, including European. In these countries, religion and ethnicity are the key features of identity, and skin color is fairly trivial. Since the idea of race is alien to many non-European cultures, a term comparable to "mulatto" is unlikely to exist, since its basic meaning is a person whose parents are of different races. To the extent that these cultures would see any point in labeling such a person (and they might not), they might describe the person's skin color as tan or light brown, or they might say that one parent had darker skin than the other, though again, lacking the concept of race, people in these cultures might see no reason to compare the skin colors of a person's parents. Marco polo (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny fact: in Turkey, black people are colloquially called "Arabs".  --Lambiam 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of Bedouins who descend from Sudanese slaves, but they aren't classified separately and they have the exact same position and rights as anyone else. AllenHansen (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure of Roman Army

Looking at Roman army, I see: 8 soldiers = 1 contubernium, 10 contubernium (contubernia/contuberniae?) = 1 century; X centuries = 1 maniple; Either 10 or 6 contubernium = 1 cohort; 10 cohorts (1*10 + 9*6 centuries) = 1 legion. So How big is a maniple and what place does it have in the structure since it appears bypassed between centuries and cohorts. -- SGBailey (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Where have all the legionnaires gone just when you need them? Never mind, try this article: Maniple (military unit) and get back to us if there's more to it. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The maniple continued to exist after the Marian reforms. It was a pair of (on paper) 80 or 100 man centuries. There is some reason to suppose that these pairings were permanent. In the first cohort of a legion at least, each maniple had its own commander, an officer called an ordinarius, of whom there were five, one for each pair of centuries. How long this state of affairs continued is unknown to me.

Vegetius has ordinarii in his description of a legion, coming immediately after the commander in his list, but from Caesar to Vegetius is four centuries and words do change in meaning. You should bear in mind that paper figures for the strength of military forces are rarely a reliable guide to their actual strength. For the Roman army, where soldiers were always detached to guard governors and tax collectors and imperial this-and-that and to serve as messengers and who knows what else, it is very unlikely that units were ever anywhere close to their paper strength when they marched out of the gate on campaign. The word legion covers Roman formations over 1000 years I suppose. What little evidence there is for the strength of legions - Egyptian papyri of around 300AD which give monetary values for the payrolls of Legio II Traiana and Legio III Diocletiana - suggest legions of around 1000 men, but this probably not something that should be applied to significantly earlier dates.

Southern & Dixon's The Late Roman Army doesn't really go into much depth on internal organisation, although that's largely because not much is known. Webster's The Roman Imperial Army does, or so I recall. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of Human Bondage

I've not long finished Of Human Bondage, Somerset Maugham's masterpiece. What I would like to know is how likely it is that a person of talent and education could fall in love with a social and intellectual inferior, a love that comes close to destroying him, the central theme of the novel? Has this happened in real life? What I mean is has any leading English writer even been in the same position as the fictitious Philip Carey? Balzac's Ghost (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the refdesk Balzac's Ghost – Maugham's own life must have some of this content since the book was based on his personal experiences, for example Philip's club foot is analolgous to Maugham's stutter. Being passed around the family, being shunned, studying medicine, being happiest in Europe were all very real material of his own life. I can't think of another writer off the top of my head, but if you're interested in the interpersonal dynamics of the novel, you could look at martyr complex, codependence, issues of control in unequal relationships and some aspects of the master-slave dialectic in Marxist terms, maybe? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How likely is it that someone of education and talent falls in love with a social inferior? Happens every day. (It used to happen much more, when men had a quasi-monopoly on the professions. Doctors fell for nurses, if not waitresses. Now doctors marry doctors.) Some people are nearly destroyed by by the love affair, some live happily ever after. How likely is it that someone fall in love with their intellectual inferior? See lust. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Bbabe, and all the while I thought it was manipulation. Silly me. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A literary example I can think of is William Henry Davies. From reading his later autobiography, which was kept unplublished before his wife died, he (as far as I recall from reading it) was over fifty and disabled when he married a young woman in her twenties who he had picked up in the street - so I suppose she was a prostitute. A non-literary example is the brief marriage of the elderly billionaire and the former stripper - I forget the names. I've noticed in American films how common it is to have a wrinkly old man with a beautiful young wife - but perhaps that happens for real in US culture? 80.0.101.168 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - Anna Nicole Smith. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the extreme age difference is all that common but the more minor age difference—guy in his 50s, woman in her 30s—is quite common, and the trope of that is being played to extremes in the films to connote all sorts of moral or humorous issues. Note though that the reversal of genders in such a situation is almost unheard of (though it does exist). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What man cares about the brains of a woman?Mr.K. (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What woman cares about the brains of a man? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends if they taste of chocolate or not. Nanonic (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the relationship between James Joyce and Nora Barnacle is worth mentioning here. That, at least, was positive for both, unlike the story of poor George Gissing, a talented, though now sadly neglected English writer, whose novel The Odd Women was considered by George Orwell to be one of the best in the English language. Poor Gissing had not one but two disastrous relationships!

In some ways his story resembles that of Maugham's Philip Cary, though his experience was far, far worse. When he was still a student he had the misfortune to fall in love with Nell Harrison, a woman he met in a Manchester brothel. In pursuit of his infatuation, he stole books and money from his fellow students to feed Nell's taste for booze as well as for her treatment for syphilis. He was finally caught and sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. This was the same kind of treadmill treatment that Oscar Wilde received at Reading Jail, which meant climbing the equivalent of 10,000 feet a day!

After his release, and a temporary exile in the United States, he returned to England and married Nell, syphilitic as she was. Of course it could not last. But even after they separated Gissing continued to send her money, supporting no less than fifteen members of her family at one point from his tiny income. Yet having rid himself of Nell he immediately picked up one Edith Underwood. No syphilis this time; Edith was just mad! Violent and unstable, she made life hell for George, as he did for her. After they separated she spent the last fifteen years of her life in a mental asylum.

With a life like this you may not be surprised to learn that much of Gissing's oeuvre is of a gloomy nature. He blamed himself for his own unhappiness, tracing it to "my own strongly excitable temperament, operated upon by the hideous experience of low life." Yet he produced some superb novels. To Orwell's recommendation I would add Born in Exile, The Nether World and, above all, New Grub Street, with an autobiographical theme to match that Of Human Bondage. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded here, but a particular thanks to Clio the Muse for that fascinating insight to the misfortunes of George Gissing. Twice! There surely have been some masochism here. I have now added New Grub Street to my reading list. Thanks agsin for taking such time and care over this. Balzac's Ghost (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I too enjoyed New Grub Street and The Odd Women and would recommend them to people who are comfortable with Victorian literature. However, in response to the original question, I would highlight that although NGS is largely autobiographical, the central character, Edward Reardon, marries a woman of higher status, and the marriage breaks down because he cannot attain the literary and financial success that she thought he would. As an aside, the two writers at the centre of the novel have been re-invented as a BBC Radio 4 comedy, Ed Reardon's Week. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Versailles and the end of democracy

President Wilson said that America entered the first world war to make the world safe for democracy but the end of empires in Europe did no such thing. Why did the end of the old Europe cause a rush to dictatorshiop? Was it because the Versailles treaty was grossly unjust? Was there any real solution to Europe's nationality problems? Thank you for your answers. Tommy Stout (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as i remember from history class, many felt Versailles was too harsh, specifically reparations and the "war guilt" clause, where Germany had to accept full responsibility for causing the war. The German people also felt betrayed by their own government because they felt the armistice had been signed prematurely. Take a look at wikipedia's Treaty of Versailles article, specifically the reactions to the treaty section. Think outside the box 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems only right that, having just written about George Gissing's fictions, I should mention that he also wrote about politics and contemporary affairs. Writing before the First World War, he placed no hope in the fashionable notions of democracy, which he saw as "full of menace to all the finer hopes of civilization." What is worse when combined with militarism and nationalism "there has but to arise some Lord of Slaughter and the nations will be tearing at each other's throats."

Tommy, the problem with the Versailles settlement -and by this I mean the whole of the post-war settlement- is not so much that it was unfair, but that it created an unstable peace; a peace based on the satisfaction of some national aspirations and the frustration of others. It also, it has to be said, created tensions within the various successor nations that were simply not compatible with democracy. In place of the nationality problems in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire came the nationality problems in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania, in some ways even more severe that what went before. Most serious of all, it was a peace predicated on the continuing weakness of Germany and Russia, and that could not last forever.

To this mixture of instability there was the added problem of Soviet Russia, where the democratic revolution of February 1917 was effectively destroyed by the Bolshevik counter-revolution in October. And I make no apology here for using the term counter-revolution in this particular context. After the forced dismissal of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, the only fully democratic body in Russian history to that date, Lenin said that this "means a complete and frank liquidation of the idea of democracy by the idea of dictatorship. It will serve as a good lesson.” It certainly did, in Italy in 1922 and Germany in 1933.

Was there a solution to the nationality problem? Yes, I suppose there was, as the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey demonstrated. But can you imagine that happening across Europe, in nation after nation, across multiple frontiers? Can you imagine the upheaval and misery caused? Now go fast forward to 1945. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio's response, is, as usual, dead-on. I think the original questioner might have mixed up two things: The nationality issue and the fragility of democracy in interwar Europe. Czechoslovakia, which had nationality issues as big as any country post-Versailles, was a true democracy all the way up to the cusp of World War II. On the other hand, Hungary never developed a stable democracy, even though it didn't really have any nationality issues inside its borders. (There were, and still are, issues about Hungarians in other countries.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this kind of collar have a name?

[3] --82.169.41.246 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing special about the collar. It is a standard button collar. What makes it look strange is that it is about two inches too small for the guy, so he has the top button unbuttoned. You can see from the creases radiating from the top buttoned button that it is pulled rather tight. -- kainaw™ 19:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In American English: buttoned-down collar. Don't know whether this is also the British English term. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looks b....y untidy to me what ever it's called!--Artjo (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw is right: the shirt is too small. But I'm not convinced it's a standard button-down collar, but rather a clerical tab collar like this (sorry for the ebay link, best image I could find in a quick search). In which case, the tie is wrong as well. Gwinva (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, after another look at the first photo, I'm not sure; it's pulled so strangely it might be a standard collar. Gwinva (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, the shirt seems just a tight fit on purpose. It seems to be a creative solution to a conservative standard with a definite sense of style about it, a "look". Probably a very recent development. Then again seeing it's from eBay, it could be just someone selling something they have obviously grown out of. I'm with kainaw on this one. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The teenage psycho-killer in the recent novel We Need to Talk about Kevin had a fetish for wearing tight clothes of this sort. His mother, the character writing the letters, explained this by saying he didn't want to grow up, a sort of Peter Pan complex. BrainyBabe (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Canceling an adoption

According to a report in the "Jerusalem Post" in July 1995, the mother of a boy born in England in the late 1950s was an English Catholic and the father a Kuwaiti Moslem, but they were not married. The mother gave the boy over to a Jewish couple for adoption, he was given the name Ian Rosenthal, and he was later converted to Judaism. At a later date he changed his name to Jonathan Bradley and went to the High Court in Britain to have his adoption overturned, but his application was not accepted. According to this newspaper article he intended to bring the case to the House of Lords and, if that failed, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Does any user know if this case came to these Courts, or that there were any other developments in this matter? Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In July 1995, this case had already gone to the Court of Appeal, where it's called 'B (A Minor)' [1995] EWCA Civ 48. It was heard by Sir Thomas Bingham (then Master of the Rolls, later Lord Chief Justice) and by Lords Justices Simon Brown and Swinton Thomas. Bradley was represented by the late Allan Levy QC and lost again. In a Judgement dated 17 March 1995, all three LJJ dismissed his appeal, while expressing deep sympathy with him, and they also refused him leave to appeal to the House of Lords. So it seems the Jerusalem Post somehow had the story wrong, if its report dated two months later suggests that appeals were still pending. For more detail of the case, see the bailii site here. Xn4 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change of names of religions - Mohammedan to Muslim

In a few older books I've read, 19th C & earlier, I see Hindu spelt as Hindoo and Muslims referred to as Mohammedans/Islam as Mohammedanism, etc. I'm just wondering when we changed to the current forms & why? I don't think it could be the influence of adherents of those religions as they've got their own spellings/names in their own languages. Anyone know? AllanHainey (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I charted the data for occurrences of the words "Hindoo" and "Hindu" in the New York Times. "Hindoo" was preferred to "Hindu" from 1851 through the early 1880s. From around 1880 to 1984 they were both used in roughly equal frequencies though "Hindu" really started to be used more. From 1900-1910 the spelling of "Hindoo" dropped off considerably, though was still ocassionally used up through the early 1930s, though nowhere nearly as often as the spelling "Hindu", which really sky-rockets. By the 1950s the word "Hindoo" is only used in weird throw-back ways, or for the names of things like racehorses. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hit "edit" for this question to see my data (below) if you want to graph it yourself. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hindu/Hindoo" is simply a case of transliteration. The change of spelling does not indicate a change of name. "Mohammedanism" is rather a more interesting case. That word fell out of favour -- I don't know when or how -- for the very good reason that it grossly misrepresents the religion. Mohammed was of course the prophet who brought the message to the people, and various spellings/transliterations of his name have been used in English over the centuries. But the religion does not worship him, and it is offensive to its followers to suggest that they do. The word "Islam" is a reasonable written approximation of the Arabic word, rendered into the English writing system. The etymology of "Islam" means "to submit", and those who do are now known as "Muslims", but again other spellings have been used -- still, sometimes, "Moslems", and more anciently "Mosselman" and its variants. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that was odd, that Muslims should find "Mohammedan" offensive: Baptists don't worship John the Baptist, Calvinists don't worship Calvin, and Lutherans don't worship Martin Luther, so how does the term "Mohammedan" imply that Muslims worship Mohammed? In all these cases, the religion is simply named after its founder. If Christians don't understand that the position of Mohammed in Islam isn't equivalent to the position of Jesus in Christianity, that has nothing to do with the name that is used. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Offence about religious matters is quite subjective, and mercurial, and is more often than not learned, not innate. A Muslim who had never been told that "Mohammedism" is considered offensive to Muslims, would be unlikely to be personally offended by it. Same goes for swear words; if someone called you a "c**t", and you'd never heard that word before, you might think they were complimenting you, and thank them. Once, it was perfectly acceptable and not considered demeaning in any way to refer to an African-American as a "negro". Now, that's not so - not because the word is inherently offensive, because no words fall into that category, but because of the negative connotations that came to be placed on it. The thing with "Mohammedanism" is that the word was invented by non-Muslims, so even though there may have been no intent to offend, and even though it seems quite reasonable and useful to outsiders when they juxtapose it with words like Buddhism, Christianity, Calvinism etc, Muslims are within their rights in asking that it not be used, just as African-Americans are within their rights to do the same with "negro" and other words now considered pejorative in meaning, if not necessarily in intent. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's actually an Arabic adjective محمدي muħammadī, but it means "pertaining to Muhammad", and is not a synonym for Muslim. However, in the past the abstract noun form المحمدية al-muħammadiyya was occasionally used to refer to the entire Islamic community, and the related word أحمدي aħmadī (derived from the same root) could be used to mean "Islamic" (and still is in certain specific phrases)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In their rights, of course. I wasn't saying they weren't, just thought it was an odd thing to get offended about. "Negro" is different - that was contaminated by racism. I've never heard of anyone using "Mohammedan" as a slur, though I suppose it may have happened. (I mean, I've heard "they" used as a slur, but hey, that's America.) — kwami (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the history of the use of the term "Christian" versus "infidel" or other pejoritive terms by Moslem writers? And if the word "negro" is offensive, then do I offend people when I contribute to the United Negro College Fund? Edison (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The basic term for "Christian" in Arabic is مسيحي masiħi (where the word masiħ is an Arabic adaptation of the Hebrew word Messiah, while Greek Christos was a translation of Hebrew Messiah). However, Muslims have traditionally more often used the word نصراني nasrani (i.e. "Nazarene"). In Qur'an verse 5:72, Muhammad uses a verbal form closely-related to the noun مشرك mushrik to refer to Christians in relation to the Christian Trinity. Mushrik means "polytheist" (most literally "one who makes a partner" for God). The classic word for "infidel" in Arabic is Kafir كافر. Some would say that the term Kafir should properly be used only for those without any monotheistic beliefs (as opposed to "people of the book" such as Jews and Christians), but its usage has not usually been restricted in that way historically, and again, Muhammad set a certain precedent when he used a related verb form to refer to Christians in the same Qur'an verse 5:72 (see the verb forms yushrik and kafara at http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/5/5_72.htm etc.). Finally, there's "Giaour" (not an Arabic word). AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that in southern Africa, "kaffir" came to be used pejoratively of ... well, negroes. I assume this was derived from the Arabic word "kafir" (all corrections gratefully accepted). Which means a word originally used to describe unbelievers came to be used in a racist way. How interesting. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MP3 law question

If I buy a CD, and lose it or it gets corrupted, is it legal for me to download the mp3's off a file sharing service in the United States? I certainly believe it's ethical. Similarly, if I pay the standard fee for a music file, and it comes in a given format, is it legal to convert it to another format? My example, for the second sentence, was that I bought several files from Yahoo music for 79 cents each, and they came in protected wma, but I hated protected media, so I circumvented it by burning it to a CD then ripping it to mp3. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues for replacing a CD: according to the RIAA, it is never legal. The courts haven't tested it out, though — it might be fair use, though I doubt it. Ethical issues: If you lose or break a CD you are not entitled to a new copy for free any more than you are to a new computer if you lose or break it. If it is a manufacturer's error, then that might be different, but just because you bought something once doesn't mean you're entitled to get another one for free. The only reason you see a difference is because you are assuming there is no lost property in creating a digital version (versus the materials needed for a computer), but that's because you're not putting any value on the intellectual property in this context. I don't think it really has much ethical footing.

Legal issues for converting between files: it probably has to do with whether or not the EULA is enforceable. Read our EULA article and you'll see that sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Ethical issues for converting: depends on whether you value the rights of the producer or the rights of the consumer more. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how merely converting the file to a different format would be unethical.Tuesday42 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Khmer rouge

was precedent in khmer rouge empyting Phmom Penn? why and had happened before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.38.138 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was. In 1971 Pol Pot expressed concerns at meeting of Angkar's Central Committee that the towns in the 'liberated zones’ were reverting to their bad old ways. Two years later he wrote that the only way to deal with the problem was to send townspeople to work in the fields. Otherwise, "if the result of so many sacrifices was that capitalists remain in control, what was the point of the revolution?" Kratié was evacuated in 1973. Not long after 15,000 people were effectively kidnapped from Kampong Cham, and driven to the 'liberated zones'. Oudong was similarly evacuated in March 1974, a year before the much larger operation in Phnom Penn. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch

There's been long-term edit warring over when this child actor was born, and no references for how his name is pronounced. Neither is particularly important, but I thought someone here might know. Thanks, — kwami (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Færch is a Danish name. The problem with Danish is that (as with English) its spelling seems to lag behind its pronunciation, so we need a Dane to tell us more. Dæg is the Old English for 'day', and I believe it means something like 'dark' in the Irish language. Xn4 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saladin's wife

The Saladin article mentions that in the year Saladin marched to Damascus to claim the throne from Nur ad-Din (Nureddin), he married Nureddin's widow as a sign of respect. Who was she? It says on Nureddin's page that he married the daughter of Imad ad-Din Unur, but it doesn't list Unur's issue. Who was Saladin's wife? I am writing a book in which Saladin is one of the characters, and I would like to know for that reason.--Scott Greenstone (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe his wife was called Ismat al-Din. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's her name - `Ismat ad-Din Khatun, or at least that was her title, since it means "Lady Purity-of-the-Faith". Her father's name was Mu'in ad-Din Unur (not Imad), and she married Nur ad-Din when the two allied in 1147. Saladin married her in 1176, and she died in 1186; even though it was a politically convenient marriage and she may have been somewhat older than Saladin, they were apparently close, as Saladin continued to write letters to her everyday, and when she died in January 1186, his retinue was afraid to tell him until March. She wasn't his only wife though; as Lyons and Jackson's biography of Saladin says, "apart from references to Nur al-Din's widow `Ismat al-Din Khatun...there are almost no details to be found about his wives or the slave girls who bore him children..." (pg. 135). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(Only somewhat tongue in cheek): "He wrote to her everyday." Did she ever write back? Did he notice when the letters stopped coming? Or did his courtiers make up some excuses, like the server's down, the Pony Express was hijacked, the courier was eaten by wolves, etc? Why did it take him months to notice, and what did he do to the well-meaning liars who had tried to keep the truth from him?BrainyBabe (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hey, he found out she died!" "RUN!" Adam Bishop (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to hunt around some more - the only books at hand are Lyons and Jackson, and the recent translation of Baha ad-Din, who doesn't mention this. I'll try to get to the usual sources for Saladin's life (L&J refer to Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani for example). I was looking at ibn al-Qalanisi for more about `Ismat and Nur ad-Din, but the index is pretty useless so I'll have to dig further. Perhaps an article or two will result! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Voila - the beginnings of an article, Ismat ad-Din Khatun (al-Din works just as well, I tend to prefer the assimilated form though). I found the reference to her in Ibn al-Qalanisi, and I will have to look for Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani and Ibn al-Athir, but otherwise the references given by Lyons and Jackson are probably not going to be accessible by me. I will look at other biographies of Saladin to see what they say as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 9

Architecture and Music

This is something I've wondered for a long time. My whole life I've loved music, and yet I fail to see any connection with architecture. Many times I've read on how a well designed building can be translated into song. This whole concept seems rediculous. I mean, has anyone walked past a skyscraper, snapped thier fingers, and thought "great tune, man" ? Could someone please explain this to me? --Sam Science (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I cant find anything on Sophic or Mantic...

Be nice if someone put something in

Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.186.150 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was Goethe who first described architecture as “frozen music”. Michael Flanders in turn suggested that his friend Donald Swann’s music was “defrosted architecture”. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the old quote that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to consider how a composer works. Speaking as a composer myself I doubt that music can actually convey extra musical ideas directly. Music does however convey the emotions and possibly the ideas of a composer very well, far better than text sometimes. Many composers cite architecture as being an inspiration to their music. John Adams has said this for instance. Maybe it a feeling of grandeur from a gothic cathedral, maybe it’s a sense of sleek modernism in a skyscraper, or maybe it’s even a sense of history that a composer is inspired by. Finally, consider how architecture has directly influenced music compositions. In particular many Renaissance composers wrote music specifically designed to be performed in churches and cathedrals. They took into account the very long reverberation time and also the location of the one or more choirs when they wrote, thereby customizing the music for the building in which it would be heard. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just emotions and ideas, but formal elements too can be translated directly from architecture to music, and back again. Both disciplines talk about static and dynamic structure, fundament, the use of space, background, omission, detail, ornament, and so forth. Iannis Xenakis, who was both an architect and a composer, published some thoughts on these translations, though they're quite academic and perhaps not directly related to your question. But yes, there are people who "see" a song in all sorts of things, including architecture, from skyscrapers to beach huts, from crowded airports to hospital waiting rooms. If synesthesia can make music elicit visual imagery, why shouldn't it be possible the other way around as well? And occasionally we do snap our fingers and think: "great tune, man!" ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of two things John Ruskin said - "A building must do two things: it must shelter us and it must speak to us of the things we find important and need to be reminded of." And "Don't just look at buildings, watch them." That second remark plainly means that while a building is static, its appearance alone isn't the only thing about it that matters: it's also important how people move around it and experience it. Perhaps a building can have many of the qualities and effects of music, although of course the comparison is a metaphysical one. Xn4 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Synesthesia? (Good luck trying to make sense of this article!) --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Music and emotion

I am a person of modest education and background who has sometimes been chagrined when persons whose opinions I respect describe popular music as being extremely simple/repetitive/unimaginative as compared to works by Mozart and company. I can see their point in terms of the virtuosity of the composition and performance, but the stuff just leaves me cold. I grew up listening to an NPR station with no shortage of classical music, but none of it can make me actually feel emotion like, say, Too Drunk to Fuck or recent Spencer Krug output or a lot of other pop music. My question: is popular music more popular than more technically masterful music for the same reason that Anne Rice outsells Nabokov, or are these different situations? Thanks.

Anyone who claims classical music is not repetitive has not actually listened to (or especially studied) classical music. I can't help but be reminded of an interview with Jimmy Page where he discusses trading riffs with David Bowie. He said that Bowie told him it must have been like that back in the classical time. Perhaps someone told Beethoven, "Hey man, I got a cool riff for you. It goes da-da-da-dum. I bet you can build a song around that." Then, I can't help but think of many Beatles songs that are far more technically masterful than Mozart. Even Metallica's Master of Puppets is more technically masterful than most classical music. So, your question is based on a fallacy. Classical music is not more technically masterful than popular music. Popular music is more popular because it is popular music. It is wasn't popular, it wouldn't be called popular music. It would be called alternative or underground or college music (or country -- oops, I shouldn't have said that!) -- kainaw™ 03:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, I disagree and I hardly think David Bowie is a good reference for classical music. lol. Although some classical music is repetitive in a sense (themes are repeated and elaborated on), it is not repetitive in the circular way that popular music is. I’m not sure how Bowie came to that conclusion, but having analyzed numerous works of Mozart, Bach, etc. and a few pieces songs by the Beatles I can’t see any contest. In terms of harmony, rhythm, melodic development, and use of tambour even Edvard Grieg is superior.

To answer the original question – I’m sorry to say this is one question to which you will not find an answer without some degree of musical training. A standard pop song has a repetitive chord progression such as I, IV, V, I (chords move in sequesnce and are labeled with Roman numerals depending on what note of the scale they start on). Compare this to even the most basic composition by Mozart which relies on a complex pattern of relationships between and within keys. Classical music is also generally far more complex and intricate than popular music because of its musical forms such as Sonata form or Rondo. Classical music is often far more expressive and uplifting than popular music. I cannot imagine comparing Too Drunk to Fuck with the searing emotional rollercoaster ride that is Bach’s St Matthew Passion. How can even the any pop love song compare to the beautiful Winterreise? How can even the complexity of on of Frank Zappa’s most experimental songs compare to the intellectual genius of Arnold Schoenberg?

Pop music is easy to absorb and requires zero thought to understand. It appeals to us on essentially a carnal level. “Classical” music requires the listener to participate. Classical music must be understood not just heard, but if you can do that the payoff is a hundred times more wonderful. If you really want to understand this question you could start by looking through Portal:Classical music and reading some of the articles featured there. Hope this helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Music evolves... I think it's simply a case of changing styles. You can't compare classical music which was composed 400 years ago to MTV's top 10 in 2008. To say either is more or less emotive is really for the listener to decide. I see both points and can totally understand each. To answer your question directly, I believe today's "general public" have come to accept things which they can enjoy instantly, and which don't require effort to do so. Like your comment about famous authors, most people would rather read a novella which takes them through a story directly, rather than read an epic classic which might require effort to actually understand and enjoy. It's basically instant gratificaton. The same applies to music. What defines technicality differs from person to person, of course, but as a fan of both the most extreme forms of metal, and the wizardry of Bach, I can state without reservation that old classical music has realms to which even the most complex modern metal compositions still aspire. I think it's blatantly untrue to say that bands such as the Beatles and Metallica produce more complex music than classical greats. Time will tell, of course, but I have my doubts that any of the music we call "popular" these days will still be listened to 1,000 years from now, whilst the great classical composers will surely live on. A personal opinion, of course. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "technically masterful music" means, whether it has to do with composition or performance. But either way I am skeptical about the link between music that is technically good and music that moves you emotionally. I might even suggest that technique has almost nothing to do with emotion. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think by technically masterful the OP means art music. Perhaps there is a link because a very skilled composer can purposefully create specific emotional responses in an audience whereas an amateur or unskilled composer may be able to do the same, but he or she may rely more on luck and inspiration than skill. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular music is 'popular' because it appeals to a broad spectrum of listeners. That makes no difference on whether it is 'technically' good or 'art or 'skilled' - it can range from being some of the best music ever made to being some of the worst music ever made (though all that would be opinion). The reason it sells well is many reasons: Easily accessible, large audience of listeners/people who've heard it to market to, general human desire to be part of the 'norm' or 'mainstream' (not everybody falls into this always, but by and large) and many other reasons. Only pretentious tossers (apologies for the use of language) believe that mainstream must equate to lower quality than niche markets - it is not the case. You may prefer more niche music more (I certainly tend to) but those niche markets churn out just as much crap music as the 'pop' world does. ny156uk (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts, in random order. It's completely fallacious to relegate classical music to that written "400 years ago". I suppose there was a bit of intentional hyperbole involved in that claim, but it just perpetuates the notion that all the classical composers died out at some stage in the past, and "popular" composers are all we have left today. That is 1000% wrong. There is wonderful "classical" music being written as I speak, and there always will be. True, great music from the past is still played, listened to and enjoyed today, precisely because a significant number of people love it and want to keep on spreading the word about it. Same holds true for great literature, sculpture, architecture and painting from the past. If it's timeless, it's timeless. On the other hand, the proportion of works of art from any era that are truly timeless, compared to the totality of all works of art from that era, is small. In amongst the great works are multitudes of lesser works all the way down to utter crap, and no composer wrote only timeless pieces. One measure of the greatness of a composer is the proportion of their entire output that remains loved and played - Bach, Beethoven and Mozart wrote literally hundreds of pieces in this category, which would probably account for 30% of everything they wrote. That might sound like a low figure, but they wrote a hell of a lot, and there isn't enough time in anyone's life to get to know their entire output. Lennon and Macartney would probably score a lot higher than 30% - and they were just as much geniuses as Mozart and co were. Popular music consists, in the main, of 3-minute songs. But when it comes to classical music we're comparing apples and oranges. Mozart's works, for example, ranged from simple 2-minute songs or piano pieces, up to 4-act operas that take 3 hours to perform, and also 4-movement symphonies and concertos, chamber music of extraordinary range and variety, masses and other choral works, etc. I might love particular parts of a certain opera, but quite dislike other parts; others would have a different set of responses. Or I might love opera but despise string quartets, or vice-versa. It's tempting to lump all "classical music" into one basket, but that's as wrong-headed as lumping reggae, jazz, soul, pop, new wave, funk, dance music, and all the other "popular" genres into one basket as if they were all the same. I've played and heard Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata probably close to 1000 times; but if, in some weird Kafka-esque nightmare, I were given the choice of hearing it played 1000 times over and over, or the Beatles' "Yesterday" played 1000 times, I'd choose the latter. One's emotional reaction to music varies greatly - I might listen to a piece on one occasion and get teary; but on another occasion I'll just enjoy it, but with no emotional reaction at all. Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia has a lot to say about emotional responses to music, as do a lot of other books on the subject. There's no explanation, afaik, as to why one person is strongly attracted to "classical" music while others are magnetised by "popular" music. I will never be able to explain why Brahms's Alto Rhapsody moves me and Smells Like Teen Spirit horrifies me. We like what we like, and we can never make anyone like what they don't. Exposure is important, and parents have a duty to expose their kids to a wide range of genres of music and other forms of art, but at the end of the day, what the kids like and enjoy is what their own brains decide for them, not what their parents decide for them. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragging (in India, especially)

What are the main causes of ragging in India. Can we call a person who conducts ragging as mentally sick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishormahabal (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragging. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Identifying classical piano piece. Please have a listen!

Last month, I posted here to see if anyone could identify a piece of classical piano from a YouTube clip. Nobody knew it, so I'm back again and hopefully some piano fan will be able to tell us this time what it is. It sounds to me like a Michael Nyman ("The Piano") piece, but the clip is only very short, so I cannot tell. Any help is appreciated. View the clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqMMJV-ZgPQ --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful if people looked at your original posting and the responses then, Soulhunter: so here it is. For some reason it is marked as "solved"; but I don't think it really was, as you indicate.

Why not email the producers of Frasier?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

...or was that a different one? If so, please give a link to correct earlier posting, so people don't have to follow up the same false leads as they did last time.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I think I posted my last request without logging in (i.e. anonymously) so I can't actually find it now. The one you specified above is, indeed, different and was solved. To provide a quick summary, Philip Glass was suggested as the composer, but it was decided that the piece was unlikely to be his. Michael Nyman remains the top runner, but nobody could identify which piece the clip was from. I will keep looking for the old discussion. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The old discussion is here. --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nutty Nazis?

Why was Hitler's government so marked by people in power with huge mental health issues? Was it due to hand-picking, the leadership role model, a job-specific selection process, or just sheer political manoevering by aggressive, ambitious types with supermen complexes gathered from Nietszche as in jobs for the boys? I take it they were a product of the times, philosophies, national confidence factors etc, but why this particular imbalance when there were a few regular, idealistic, "principled" types like say, Rommel? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you're on the right track, though perhaps supermen complexes would be over-egging it for most party members. On the whole, there aren't many modest and entirely rational people who go into politics, at the best of times. For Germany, the years following the First World War were the worst of times, and when the Nazi party got into government its rise was still linked with the SA as well as the SS. The Nazi Party always presented a theatrical or even melodramatic face to the world. On the inside, I find it hard to see a man like Rommel getting far, even if he'd wanted to be part of the show, which is also hard to imagine. Xn4 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Julia. I'm not at all sure that the Nazi leadership was in fact marked by 'mental health issues', as you have put it. Indeed, I personally would reject such a label as positively dangerous, in the sense that it would seem to offer a convenient and entirely unsatisfactory explanation for the criminal excesses of the Nazi regime. After all, mad people do mad things; don't they? Yes, it is true that Hitler might be said to have some personality disorders, but so, too, did Stalin. Most of the senior Nazi leadership-and I do not include Julius Streicher here-were surprisingly normal, with little in the way of a 'superman complex'. Some had above average intellects; people like Herman Göring, Josef Goebbels, Albert Speer and the 'fellow traveller' Hjalmar Schacht. Others like Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Frick and Walther Funk were colourless mediocrities, who, but for Hitler, would almost certainly have passed through life unnoticed by History. Others, most notably Rudolf Hess, were just bizarre eccentrics.

Xn4 is right in drawing attention to the historical circumstances that brought these men together, and allowed them to advance the programme they had. If they were mad then so, too, was Germany. Yes, they were all ambitious, all anxious to make an impact on the world and address what they saw as injustices inflicted on Germany. They all had principles of a kind, not principles you or I may like, but principles nonetheless. Perhaps the only one with a true 'superman complex' was Goebbels, a restlessly ambitious figure with a razor-like intellect and virtually no moral sense at all. But Goebbels was an oddity in a party that stressed an Aryan ideal. Below average height with a club-foot and a large head, he over-compensated for his perceived weaknesses by developing his skills as a publicist, a speaker and an organiser. In these particular areas he had a talent second to none. He was probably one of the few who ever read Nietzsche.

I suppose in the end you have to consider that the Nazi state was torn up by the roots, so to speak, which has allowed the kind of pathology that you have advanced. Yes, it was mad. Yes, they were mad. But just imagine if this had happened with any other state; just think what the records might reveal. What, for example, lies behind Donald Rumsfeld, a man less fitted for senior office I find hard to imagine. Look also at the Soviet leadership under Stalin, little better than a collection of thugs and drunks with a sexual pervert thrown in for good measure. And they all emerged from an ideology that placed its greatest stress on the liberation of the human race! Politics at the best of times is an odd business, attracting odd people. We know all too well what it attracts at the worst of times. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, these men were both angry and capable, but not mad (in your words, "people with huge mental health issues"). Mad people need tremendous luck to organize their own success, and the leading Nazis had to make their own luck and did succeed to a large degree, both in their own careers and in taking over their country. After the Great War, Germany had been treated meanly and foolishly in defeat, and in the midst of economic collapse and mass unemployment the Nazis set about harnessing the anger of the German nation to bring themselves to power. That course took them into extreme paths, and when they got into power (especially later, under war-time conditions) it corrupted them further. When Hess flew to the UK in 1941, he was closely examined and found to be suffering from mental illness and depression, but was not not found to be mad. In all the circumstances, that's hardly surprising. Hitler, surely, was mad by the end, and the killing of the Goebbels children surely shows madness, but people do crack up under such pressures. I agree with Clio that we see forms of mental illness at the top in all directions. Xn4 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That clarifies things for me, that syndromes of incapacitating mental health problems weren't the thing, but tendencies to be crazy were in the party and were aggravated under pressure. Re "principled", it was the turn of phrase meaning having some sense of responsibility to others and doing the best job they could contrasting with the cruelty and excesses of people in power - rightly the Nazis had their own principles as in a chain of reasoning, so I didn't mean to be so woolly there. It's been very helpful to have the overview, connections with will and power and politics and the background of Germany between the wars as a recipe for ensuing developments. I take it the fascism wasn't against a background of suzerainty that was Stalin's- though this isn't to make excuses for anyone abusing power in the way that these are examples (or models) of, but I couldn't see how the mad ones accumulated the way they did, so it's been helpful to think about that. I guess too that having an extremist in leadership attaches and protects others with the same um... aptitudes as himself and keeping them around him. It's disturbing to see "forms of mental illness at the top in all directions". In the end, power is about oppression to stay in place and other syndromes such as paranoia emerge in that context. It's a rich field to think about lots of things - including what a prevailing power understands by what it means to be human - and not. Thanks for your thoughtful information, both of you. Politics, anyone? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not mad, but severely lacking in moral judgement. AllenHansen (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumsfeld is a Princeton graduate. There is no point comparing him to the Nazis and I dont know how Clio the Muse got this information that he is the man "less fitted for office that she could imagine". Perhaps she thinks Churchill is much more of an intellectual as him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Rumsfeld with Churchill. Big mistake. Flamarande (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Churchill's an interesting comparison and undoubtedly suffered from mental illness. In 1758, the Duke of Newcastle warned George II against promoting James Wolfe, claiming he was mad. Thackeray's William Pitt (1827) quotes the king as replying "Mad, is he? Then I wish he would bite some other of my generals". Xn4 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain seemed to have a weak grasp on reality in the period leading up to WW2, in evaluating and reacting to the German threat to peace, and in evaluating the ability of Poland to resist invasion. Insane or merely incompetent? Edison (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither! Would you like me to mount a defence of Chamberlain and Appeasement, Edison? Then you only have to post it as a separate question! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Churchill suffered from depression specially towards the end of his life, but I don't know how this influenced his actions. Anyway, it is nothing like some kind of delusional thinking that is what the RP may be searching for. Mr.K. (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a short rebuttal to "Rumsfeld is a Princeton graduate". A few years ago, the Hamburg historian Michael Wildt took a closer look at the RSHA, one of the chief organizers of the Third Reich's most monstrous and pathological achievement, the Holocaust. (Generation des Unbedingten. Das Führungskorps des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes, Generation of the Unbound: The Leadership Corps of the Reich Security Main Office. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2002 (Engl., in original German, Hamburg: 2002). ISBN 9653081624.).

According to the study, 75% of the RSHA'ss leading officials had an Abitur, about two thirds had a University degree (most often law), and about one third had a PhD. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But in any case, since when was a university degree considered a prerequisite for political office? The best leadership takes natural political skill, which cannot be taught in a university environment. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, delusional was the word and the feature I was after. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure that the Nazi's did have 'huge mental health issues'. A lot of them were highly educated and capable, but also, certainly by the end of the war, completely amoral. (Have a look at Hans Frank.) I suspect that, in a sort of Stanley Milgram sort of way, they competed with each other for Hitler's attention (he was, apparently, a great believer in divide and conquer techniques amongst his higher echelons). See also the book: 'Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland' by Christopher Browning for a chilling description both of how ordinary people became detuned to their activities and how they systematically became more and more brutal. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "Beastorn"

A recent question about Byzantium/Byzantine reminds me that in July last year of 2006, on a thread about words to do with Byzantium – see here - I asked a side question about the origin of the word “Beastorn”, or even whether it’s a real word. It appeared in "Barry Jones Dictionary of World Biography" (Information Australia, 2nd ed., 1996), in the article on Charlemagne, and the full quote is as follows:

• By 800, Charlemagne was the supreme power in western Europe, and he and his counsellors, such as the English Alcuin, wishing to emphasise an imaginary continuity between Charles his empire [sic] and that of Rome, argued that the imperial throne was vacant owing to the crimes of the Beastorn (Byzantine) empress Irene. (my emphasis)

I took the advice last year in 2006 that it was probably a misprint for “Eastern”, but that's never quite sat right in my brain. The book, as I said last year then, has an extremely surprising number of factual and spelling errors for a person of Jones's undoubted erudition, so it could well be just another one. However, the spelling errors (apart from transliterations of Russian names, about which he’s very inconsistent) tend to be more related to type-setting rather than those perpetrated by Jones himself, e.g. in many places where the letter l (el) belongs, the numeral 1 (one) appears. And on the back cover, there’s a blurb for the reader, signed by Barry Jones, and with his name printed under his signature. It’s spelled “Barry 0. Jones” - that’s Barry zero Jones, not Barry O (for Owen) Jones. I know this because in the body of the blurb he refers to Edna O’Brien and O.J. Simpson, both spelled correctly with an O and not a 0. There’s no way he would misspell his own name so egregiously. There was a later edition of the Dictionary in 1998, but I don't have it so I can't compare.

I remain inclined to the view that it's not a typo, and that Jones uses the word Beastorn quite deliberately, if for no other reason than that he explains, by the use of a word in brackets, what he’s referring to. If it were a typo for "Eastern", no explanation would be required, and the word "Byzantine" would not require any brackets. The first time I ever read this passage, the word sprang out at me and I knew absolutely that I’d seen it somewhere before, but I still can’t remember where or when. On Google there are precisely 3 hits for “Beastorn” – my original question from last year 2006; a weird Spanish “grammer” [sic] site which has quoted my question without authority (what cheek!); and a rather amazing porn site named “Beastporn” (I had to open it in the interests of literary and historical research, you understand). But that's all. I seem to be in very dubious company lately. I did check with Michael Quinion last year around that time, but he drew a complete blank. So, it seems to be just about unknown, except to Barry Jones and me (well, at least my taste in friends is improving).

OK, after that long-winded intro, I’m now casting around for anyone who can help me with the etymology of this word and its relationship to things Byzantine. Clio – if anyone knows about stuff like this, you would. Any ideas? Noetica - you’ve turned up here since those heady days – does the OED have anything to say about this melancholy and haunting word? Or anyone else? I'm depending on you. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly unlikely that "Eastern" might be qualified by "Byzantine" in that context. I remember this discussion from before; the typo explanation still seems most reasonable. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

so what is this 'beastporn' site like? are we talking animals here or what?...:)Perry-mankster (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not animals in the sense of non-human. More like super-human, if you get my drift. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack, is that really a published dictionary definition? It's positively breathless! It also makes Alcuin sound like some kind of collective or tribe! What on earth are the alleged crimes of the Empress Irene? In actual fact Pope Leo III and Charlemagne considered the imperial throne to be vacant for entirely sexist reasons. Irene was, well, a woman! Perhaps that was her chief crime?! I have no idea where 'Beastorn'-a truly ugly word-comes from. I imagine-and please forgive me for saying so-that it is a product of Mr. Jones intellectual confusion. I must have a look at this dictionary. If this is typical it must be full of laughs!

Incidentally, I did not see this first time around because the Language Desk is not among my happy hunting grounds. In reading it over I was surprised to note that the first respondent had never heard of Byzantium. I seem always to have known of its existence, dragged into consciousness from some past life perhaps! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The real reason you didn't see it is that it was posted in July 2006, Clio, before your arrival in these hallowed environs, not last year as I incorrectly stated. The quote above is not a definition, just the full sentence in which the word appears; it's part of a considerably longer article on Charlemagne. I quoted it to provide the context in which the word Beastorn appears; I thought that might help respondents to understand what was going on. Unfortunately, the Dictionary doesn't have an article on the empress Irene, so I have no idea to which "crimes" Jones was referring. In his autobiography A Thinking Reed (2006), he goes into great detail about the genesis of this Dictionary (he started work on it in the mid 1950s!), and explains the troubles he had with publishers in earlier versions. These included various editions being published under his name, but without his knowledge, and with massive unauthorised changes and deletions made by the publishers. Apparently he wrote a stinging denunciation of the troubled history of the work in Private Eye. I can't agree about the ugliness of Beastorn - it's certainly not a beautiful word, but it does evoke another place and another time - it has a really haunting quality for me, hence my lingering obsession with it. But that's just me. Thanks anyway, Clio. So, where does this leave me? Noetica, you may be my last hope. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Constantine_VI does not sound an ideal son, having him kidnapped and blinded might be considered an ummotherly act, or even a crime. SaundersW (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That the Empress was notorious for having blinded and murdered her own son was, in the minds of both Leo and Charles, almost immaterial: it was enough that she was a woman. The female sex was known to be incapable of governing, and by the old Salic tradition was debarred from doing so. As far as Western Europe was concerned, the Throne of the Emperors was vacant: Irene's claim to it was merely additional proof, if any were needed, of the degeneration into which the so-called Roman Empire had fallen. John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: the Early Centuries, 1988, p. 378.

As I have said, no women, thank you very much! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Questing knight Sir Noetica hunts down the legendary Beastorn while a dew-clad nymph applauds.

Ariel-like at your bidding, JackofOz, I have skimmed the logosphere, and dallied the while among dew-clad nymphs of lexicomania, ears a-strain. But I hear nothing like unto beastorn, neither at OED nor under no manner cowslip.

Eastern, meseems, is an hypothesis not lightly to be dismissed. If there is an infelicity here, it would not be the first from Jones. In Decades of Decision he derives utopia as if it were eutopia (a separate and much rarer word). This is a schoolboy howler, where I come from. Similarly, in live conversation with Jones I ascertained that for all his fine talk concerning reductionism in Sleepers, Wake!, he has an... unusual understanding of its role in integrating the special sciences.

On Friday I might be able to check later editions of his dictionary. Would you like that? If so, give me a little more information (chapter title; proportion of the way through the chapter, etc.) to guide me. Failing that, there are certain surpassing good gurus we can consult in quest of the fabled beastorn.

Clio, I have a copy of Norwich's Byzantium: the Early Centuries. You inspire me to advance it in my list of legenda.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I could go into chapter and verse about the errors I've spotted in the Dictionary of World Biography, but that would take all week. To be fair, though, I have no reason to believe other than that the overwhelming proportion of facts he states are true; it's just that, where he goes wrong, he sometimes goes badly and inéxplicably wrong, and these errors really stand out and assume a gravitas out of proportion to their numbers. I can't resist giving a few examples: (a) Of Sir Roger Bannister, he says: English athlete. The first to achieve a four-minute mile (6 May 1954), he was knighted in 1979. All true, except that there's no reference to his other life as a physician. His knighthood could reasonably be assumed to have been bestowed for services to athletics, when in fact it had nothing to do with this but was entirely for his services to medicine. (b) In the article on Mary, the mother of Jesus, he describes the Immaculate Conception to mean that she was "the subject of a virgin birth". In fact, the doctrine says no such thing. It says she was born without stain of original sin. Although she is said to have remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, there's never been any suggestion that Mary's mother remained a virgin after giving birth to Mary. (c) He says, of King Alfonso XIII of Spain, As a posthumous child of Alfonso XII, he may be said to have been a king before he was born. Well, hardly. He wasn't even legally a person till he was born, let alone a king. (d) On Cecil Beaton, he says that he was the friend and (briefly) lover of Greta Garbo. Maybe so, but that entirely obscures the flaming homosexuality which characterised his main relationships. (e) He says that Irving Berlin's original given name was "Isidore", when it was actually Israel. Isidore was his middle name. (f) He talks, in reference to the appearances at Lourdes claimed by Bernadette Soubirous, of "the vision" and "the event" - there were no less than 18 such claimed visions and events! (g) Of Humphrey Bogart, he talks of his first big success in The Petrified Forest (1934), which led to a long series of 75 films including ... you guessed it, The Petrified Forest. And so on. In one of his other books, Barry Jones' Guide to Modern History: Age of Apocalypse (1975), he refers to the Ottoman Empire as "a Mohammedan power" (!). I guess it's easy to nitpick, but it is fun.

Back to the Dictionary: There are no chapters, simply a continuous series of short articles on prominent people throughout history, arranged alphabetically by surname. The article on Charlemagne is on page 147 of the 1996 edition (820 pages), and the sentence I quoted above is about 45% of the way down the article. Yes, thank you, Noetica, I'd be very interested to learn whether this word is replicated in the later edition (which I've learned today is for some odd reason referred to as "the 1999 edition" despite being published in 1998). I'm pretty much convinced, if reluctantly, by now, that "Beastorn" must really be a typo for "Eastern", but I am very keen to put this rest once and for all. Thank you all for your forbearance with me; I know I should have been shut up a while ago. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "Beastorn" may become another one of those obscure RD jokes. How could one possibly misspell "eastern" in such a manner? I have to check this book out for myself. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is an "RD" joke, Anon? Why do I get the feeling you are not treating this matter with due seriousness? What is the capital of Assyria?

JofO, how silly of me. Of course it has no chapters! I'll get back to you when I have trawled the tomes.

O, and Jones was spotted more recently (last year?) on The Einstein Factor (nonsense that it is!) confidently confusing helium and hydrogen in the most, um, elementary way. Excruciating, from a former Minister for Science. Still. He's done such things; we have not.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As to how the error could possibly have occurred, my guess is that the text was scanned at some point and the infelicities for which this technology is notorious happened this way. What else could explain the literally hundreds of examples where an l (letter el) is replaced with a 1 (number one), and an O (letter) is replaced with a 0 (zero). Also, many words are broken into 2 parts (without sometimes becomes "with out", throughout sometimes becomes "through out", etc). Chabrier's influence was "no table" (i.e. notable). In the Charles I entry, we read about Archbishop William Laud's "at tempt" to influence matters. We're told that Archimedes "calculated the value of ! [sic, and my own personal !] to a close approximation" - surely this was meant to be π . And so on and on. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So I eased my way in reeeeeal quiet-like, out of the heat of the Melbourne day – into the sweaty jungle gloom of The Library. This is what I had been trained for. It was... strangely quiet. Too quiet. This was Charlie's point, and I had no business there except a mission – a mission from JackofOz. Beastorn, verify status. Determine, with extreme prejudice.

Reference section? Yeah, right. That's what they told the Poindexter kid, and he was never seen again. Still dunno what they told his old lady, but it sure as hell wasn't the truth, no sir Bob.

And then there it was: vintage Jones, 1999 pure Cambodian, hardly used. I cracked open the gun-metal boards, blew off the dust, and... uncannily pristine and not so much as a mind-my-misprint: the Beastorn.

I was due for R&R and just wanted to get out of there with my brain still in and my guts intact, but something told me: Shoot, shoot goddamnit. Gave it three quick swipes with my 2-megapixel Sony-Ericsson CIA-special-issue, and one of its bio-tome buddies. There's ALWAYS another one, just down the shelf aways. We knew they were hoarding this stuff, just like the vets said about Alexandria. Yeah, you know the type: Chambers, 1997. I'd seen 'em in Nam. Giant brutes, with entries for every two-bit Byzantine empress this side a' Nantucket.

Turns out it had the juice on this Irene broad:

Irene c.752–803

Byzantine empress

She was a poor orphan of Athens, and her beauty and talents led the Emperor Leo IV to marry her (769). After his death (780) she ruled as regent for her son, Constantine VI. Powerful and resolute, she imprisoned and blinded him and her husband's five brothers, and ruled in her own right from 797, but in 802 she was banished to Lesbos. For her part in patronizing monasteries and restoring icon veneration she was recognized as a saint by the Greek Orthodox Church.

That was all. Tough dame! Turns out it jives with Wikipedia's briefing, but... I was suspicious as all hell: Lesbos, likes it Greek... sounds like one of those Maffra-dikes the pah-dray done warn us about. But what did I care? My tour was up, and I was headin' off waitin' for the next boat down-river. The desk-jockey brass back home could make what they like of this... "field in-telli-gence", or whaddever the hay they call it. 'Taint ma war no moah. But the Beastorn? It's out there, I tell you. It's out there.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, you're a saint, not only for your stirling efforts on my behalf but more particularly for braving this fucking heat (no apologies; this is supposed to be autumn, goddamit! Didn't anyone tell the weather gods to turn summer off at the stroke of midnight on 1 March? The leaves on my trees are beautifully golden and dropping (which means they're not on my trees anymore, but I think you're probably intelligent enough to know this), but for all the wrong reasons) when I would gladly have provided a papal dispensation (or even empirical in this case, if that's the right word) had I believed you were making a special trip solely for little ol' me and didn't have important (naturally) and unavoidable business in the city anyway. We Maffradites have been staying indoors in air-conditioned comfort away from Beastorns, but still unable to avoid a plague of beastly insects that also seem to want to get away from the weather outside and seem to regard mere doors and mere flyscreens as challenges to be overcome rather than actual barriers to ingress. The Beastorn is around, somewhere close, I can just sense it. But that's my problem. St Noetica of the Heatwave, go in peace, tripping merrily back to the Dandenongs where you may now have that well-deserved rest on your cold stone floor with a rock for a pillow. (Well, at least it'll be relatively cool). Thanks, mate, much obliged. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wild Geese: "Flight of the wild geese"

Where did the name "Flight of the Wild Geese" come from? --12.169.167.154 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found nothing definite, but would have guessed that like the feathered geese, they migrated southward in large numbers, hoping to return one day, when the climate is warmer again.

I did find this quote by Seán Ó Faoláin:

"The Wild Geese come in their thousands with the October moon. They blacken the sky and they cry the coming of Autumn. Where there are low marshlands, or sloblands, they settle down, and then the cabins are cooking them with much butter or grease in the bastables all the Winter. About the estuary of the Shannon, and all up the river into Limerick, they must have whizzed and moaned, that Winter of 1691, when Ginkel offered the terms that ended the Jacobite War, and started bitter quarrels among the tired and tattered Irish. The flying Irish, down the Shannon or down the Lee with Sarsfield, looked up at the skies, and took the name, The Wild Geese. It was the end of a period. It was all but the end of a race." [4]

---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this "French ships, which came to the west coast of Ireland smuggling brandy and wine, would leave with recruits for the Irish Brigade. To hide their movements from the English, the men would be listed on the ship's manifest as 'Wild Geese,' thus the origin of the name" here[5]. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Singing: what is this "quivering" of the voice?

In this rendition of 'ne me quiite pas', the singer's voice possesses a quality; a sort of quiver that occurs at certain points throughout - is there a name for this kind of "quivering" of the voice? --Seans Potato Business 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tremolo. Gdr 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me rather as though the tremolo is produced in rather than being an intrinsic quality of her voice, though. SaundersW (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when used by skilled singers, tremolo is a musical technique rather than an accidental occurrence. It can be used to great effect when applied artistically. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vibrato. Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vibrato is a fluctuation in pitch rather than the fluctuation in intensity of tremolo. By the way, I meant only that this particular tremolo sounded artificial, not that it is artificial in general. SaundersW (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain, UK, British Isles, etc.

I have been aware on past visits to Wikipedia of the battles that flare up from time to time over the use of the term 'British Isles' as applied to the whole archipelago, including the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Thinking about the politics here I was wondering how the label 'Britain' evolved in relation to Britain itself, that part of the archipelago excluding Ireland. The Roman provance of Britannia did not include-or describe-the whole island; so how did the concept evolve after the departure of the Romans? Does any of this make sense? probably not. But I'm sure some of you guys will give me a good answer. I'm relying on you!King Knut (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the very detailed British Isles (terminology)#Historical aspects? Gdr 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Yes, I have read all of that page. What I am asking about though is the evolution of a POLITICAL as opposed to a geographic concept. I am sorry I did not make this clearer. King Knut (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the page the previous respondent referred to covers the political as well as the geographical use of the name in some detail. Additional information not in that article might include that the term Bretwalda - usually understood to mean "Lord of Britain" - was used in the Anglo-Saxon period to refer to an Anglo-Saxon ruler who had dominance over the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. How, why, and to what extent the term was used is a matter of some debate - as the article I've linked to sets out. The term King of the Britons was sometimes used to refer specifically to Welsh princes prior to Wales' incorporation into the Kingdom of England.

Put simply, the island continued to be called Britain after the Romans left, and when a state emerged that occupied the whole of the island, the geographic name was adopted for that state. 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Britain was always both a political and a geographic concept. However, things start to get complicated after the Romans left in the fifth century. Bede, for instance, obviously thinks of the Britons as a very specific group of people, under attack from both the Irish and the Picts. As he has it "...we call them races from over the waters, not because they dwelt outside Britain but because they were separated from the Britons by two wide and long arms of the sea, one of which enters the land from the east, the other from the west, thought they do not meet." The 'arms of the sea' here refer to the Firths of Clyde and Forth.

Going forward to the ninth century Historia Brittonum again we see two Britains. There is the island inhabited by the Scots, Picts, Saxons and Britons. But the author-traditionally named as Nennius-goes on to describe the thirty-three cities of Britain, none further north than Dumbarton-the fort of the Britons-on the Clyde estuary, suggesting a non-British kingdom beyond to the north. This distinction is maintained by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which divides the island between the Picts to the north and the Britons to the south.

By the tenth century we find Edward the Elder being described as "King of the English, raised by the right hand of the Almighty to the throne of the kingdom of all Britain." But the first who might truly be entitled to that title was Athelstan, his son.

There was still at this time confusion, though over the precise terminology, as 'King of Britain' could effectively still mean dominion only over the old Roman province. The one way of getting round this might have been the style 'King of all Britain', which appears with increasing frequency in the Chronicles, or 'King of Albion’, a tenth-century neologism Eadwig, for example, is described as 'king not only of the Anglo-Saxons but also truly of the whole island of Albion.'

In reading early Medieval sources it is as also as well to remember that Britain could still mean 'the land of the Britions', as opposed to England. In Asser's Life of King Alfred it is used specifically in reference to Wales, with Offa's Dyke "the great rampart made from sea to sea between Britain and Mercia.” In is only from the twelfth century that the Britons of the west were described as being from 'Wealas', the Old English for foreigner or Celt, though the Welsh still thought of themselves as British. By the following century the Normans, abandoning the old Anglo-Saxon preoccupation with the whole island, thought of Britain as the old name for their own kingdom of England.

In his History of the Kings of Britain Geoffrey of Monmouth managed to create an elaborate and bogus genealogy, giving comfort to both the Welsh and the English in their claims to authentic Britishness! The competition between the two over historical roots found some resolution in Elizabethan times, when Edmund Spencer celebrated in the Faerie Queene a Britain made up exclusively of England and Wales. It took a northern interloper to bring a new and not entirely welcome expansion of this idea! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a book on this subject (unread by me, but it got good reviews): 'Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837' by L. Colley. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A Dutch patriotic song

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v8YMbB6f7k

What is the song in the movie "A Bridge too Far". It is also in the movie "Soldaat van Oranje". -- Toytoy (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's "Oranje boven, oranje boven, leve de koningin." The best way to translate it would be something like "Up Orange, Up Orange, long live the Queen!" It's hard to translate the word "boven" correctly. Literally it means up or above, but in this context it means something along the lines of "hail ...". This song is sung to this day. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you going to sing this when you will be ruled by a king? Will it scan?  --Lambiam 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be very honest with you: I have no idea, since we haven't had a king since November 1890. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "koning" could easily be substituted for "koningin". There are plenty of precedents, like the version from the wedding of Juliana and Bernhard, where "het bruidspaar" was substituted. I am afraid this would be the solution. If you are really interested in the nauseating history of these Orangist songs you might try the site "www.geheugenvannederland.nl" and enter "Oranje boven" (with quotes) in its search engine. This will bring a number of sheet music examples going back to 1813. There are a number of different songs, using the slogan "Oranje boven" in their lyrics. Try this example, for instance [6] I hope this is useful as a first approximation--Ereunetes (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing koningin with koning doesn't sound well metrically though, because one syllable is missing. Maybe it would be possible if koning is sung 'konihing'. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The estate of Anna Nicole Smith

Who will get her money eventually, in American law, as the son she left her money to in her will is deceased? 80.0.106.88 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea but a scan through articles such as probate, inheritance and Uniform Probate Code might help you find out more. 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith's daughter will inherit late mother's estate. Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the daughter receive estate as a beneficiary in a testamentary clause or through intestate succession? 75Janice (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article linked by CorcusCorvus cornix says, "A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday made 18-month-old Dannielynn Hope the sole heir and set up a trust in the girl's name", I suspect the latter. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Close to the latter. Anna Nicole Smith didn't quite die intestate, but her will named no beneficiaries that were alive at the time of her death (she had left everything to her son Daniel, and had not revised her will following Daniel's death and Dannielynn's birth). The size of Anna Nicole's estate is not particularly large unless she wins her suit regarding the provisions of J. Howard Marshall's will, and we are faced with the prospect of a protracted legal battle between representatives of two dead people, which will be economically beneficial primarily for the lawyers involved. Ideally, a settlement would be reached between Marshall's other heirs and Dannielynn's representatives (which should be possible now that Anna Nicole is dead, and the ill-feelings between the heirs should be of lesser importance), but that would require that Dannielynn's representatives place her interests above their own. We shall see what transpires, as Howard Stern is involved. One is reminded of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. - Nunh-huh 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding loan talks (germany post war)

Some background: The best research on the Morgenthau plan I've found so-far is this paper: Frederick H. Gareau "Morgenthau's Plan for Industrial Disarmament in Germany" The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1961), pp. 517–534 Here Gareau explains how the plan was longterm policy, it won the day at the Potsdam conference thanks to the political bent of the U.S. delegation, and then gradually was watered out, although its effects on Germany lasted well into the 50's.

There were two main turning points, one was the September 1946 speech which most reputable historians have rightly labeled as the primary turning point, see also John Gimbel "On the Implementation of the Potsdam Agreement: An Essay on U.S. Postwar German Policy" Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 2. (Jun., 1972), pp. 242-269.

The second main turning point was Hoovers March 1947 report where he candidly stated "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It can not be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it.", as for example used here. This report in a convoluted way led to the U.S. occupation directive being rescinded.

I found this paper, released in 2006 on the UK government secret discussions from 21 October 1946, where they pretty much prove that the historians who saw the Byrnes speech as one of the pivotal point were right. I.e. "b) U.S. policy was pastoralising (Morgenthan) until Stuttgart speech. They supported R. & Fr. case - to point of reducing steel prodn to 5.8 m. tons. And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." "...They forced us to 5.8 m. - but all experience has shown we were right on APW Cttee in our figure of 11 m. " "Before this was completed I had seen Byrnes (before Stuttgart speech) & asked wtr. this meant he wd. overthrow Morgenthau policy. He said yes - with Truman´s authy."

What buggs me is that I would like to know more about the "And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly." Which loans was it that the U.S. so strongly opposed? Any ideas on this? i presume they were some sort of reconstruction loans for Germany that the Morgenthauers in the U.S. administration wanted no part of? Regards--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

EB (Ernest Bevin) is talking about the Anglo-American loan - the UK economy had a very large dollar deficit, not all of it home-grown, and a desperate need of dollar-denominated credits - which had been agreed in December 1945. It wasn't the US that "cdn´t oppose", it was EB who couldn't oppose US plans to deindustrialise Germany until after the loan was agreed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okey, thanks a lot for clearing that up for me. Although I have to say that from EB's 1949 letter to Schuman he does not seem very opposed to de-industrialisation per see.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"I must tell you frankly that the continuation of dismantling is causing great disquiet among the Labour Party here and is becoming more and more unpopular in Parliament." [I am opposed] "In my view we cannot afford to wait until our whole dismantling policy falls about our ears ... ." [So we should stop now]

The Americans got the scenery, the Russians got the agriculture and the British got the (heavy) industry. The day-to-day priority of the British administration was to keep steel and coal and finished goods flowing out of the British zone and food flowing in. But dismantling didn't help with that.

"[A]s long as [the dismantling issue] remained unsettled it was the British who had to bear the brunt of German resentment and American criticism." [Bullock, Ernest Bevin: A Biography, p. 671] Had conditions been different, food could have been imported from the Sterling bloc, but in 1945-1947 feeding Germans meant spending dollars and we've already seen that dollars were one thing the British did not have. The short version is that Alled post-war policy in Germany was made everywhere but London. "England is so weak she must follow our leadership. She will do anything that we insist upon ..." said W. Averell Harriman. And he was right. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discographies: Alberto Ginastera's "Danzas Argentinas"

Hi, I'm trying to compile a discography of Alberto Ginastera's "Danzas Argentinas" but have not had any luck. I've tried online databases, but they have results that are outdated, and therefore inaccurate. I was wondering if you could help point me in the right direction, or know of any sites that would help (that I haven't been able to find yet). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.5 (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Surely you have already checked this article. I guess this link and this other one are not of much help. Maybe you want to try posting your query on the Entertainment Desk, where such kinds of search usually receive helpful treatment. Pallida  Mors 02:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 10

Artificial Competition

Is there an example (from past or present...NO FUTURE PLEASE) of a Parent Company manufacturing two different but similar products for the purpose of creating the illusion of competition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.192.184 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Procter & Gamble produce detergents and haircare products under many different brands. Another classic example is the car industry, where multiple marques are owned by one parent company and vehicles are badge engineered; for example, in the US market GM produces the all-but-indistinguishable Chevrolet Trailblazer, Oldsmobile Bravada, GMC Envoy, Isuzu Ascender, Buick Rainier and Saab 9-7X. Whether the goal is to "create the illusion of competition" is debatable; more often, it's because one company has bought out another, and fears losing market share if they retire one of the brands. FiggyBee (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

When I worked for Sony, the professional equipment was sold at a high price with a Sony brand on it. The same internal equipment was placed in a drabber looking case and branded either National or Panasonic and sold at a lower price. As such, I performed the same repairs/maintenance on Sony and Panasonic equiment - often switching parts between the two brands. I can only assume the reasoning is that some people will buy Sony because of brand loyalty, but others will pay 1/3 the price to Panasonic because they think it is a great deal over the Sony model. Wish they'd do that with the PS3. I'd be more than happy to buy a Panasonic FunStation3. -- kainaw™ 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all the many margerines sold are owned by a few companies. I don't think the idea is to create the illusion of competition, but that the different images appeal to different people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, the same company owns more than two newspapers including The Times and The Sun. One upmarket, the other a downmarket tabloid or comic-for-adults. 80.2.206.197 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the US, newspapers are per-city rather than national, and for cities that have two major newspapers, it's not uncommon for the two to be run by the same company and share printing facilities. Sometimes the only difference is that one paper is written from a Republican/conservative perspective, and the other is written from a Democratic/liberal perspective. --Carnildo (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a single company to make products aimed at different segments of the same market. P&G and GM have been mentioned before. Anheuser-Busch markets Busch Beer for the working class, Budweiser for the middle class and Michelob for the upper-middle class. None of those examples meet the original poster's criteria, however. There may be examples in antitrust law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's called product proliferation, and the aim is not so much the "illusion of competition" but a desire to gain a larger market share, and make it more difficult for new companies to edge in. If, say, there were 5 brands of shampoo, and you had 1, then you would cover approx 1/5 of the market. If someone else steps in with a new brand, then that drops to 1/6. Better, then, to market 5 brands yourself: 5/9 is a much bigger share, and a new one-brand competitor will only shift that to 5/10. FiggyBee mentions P&G above. Check out how many laundry detergents (for example) are listed at the List of Procter & Gamble brands. As Mwalcoff notes, it also enables them to aim at different markets. ps. Product proliferation is an orphan stub. A worthy candidate for an eager editor. Gwinva (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

People Who Were Important in Establishing Bilingual Education Programs in the United States

I need to know about three or four people who were important in establishing bilingual education programs in the United States. 99.135.154.196 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look on the website of, or contact directly, the professional organisation known as TESOL Inc.. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Chancellorsville

I read about the battle of Chancellorsville as a result of an interesting discussion here about nineteenth century battles. General Hooker lost this battle but what I would like to know is could he have won the campaign if he had pressed the attack as General Mead wanted? I know this may call for a lot of speculation, but I still think it worthwhile. Also I am amazed in considering these civil war battles more generally just how fantastically high the casualty rates were. Figures like this today would cause national outrage. Was there a reason for such high battle casualties, apart from clumsiness by the opposing commanders? 217.43.8.37 (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualties of that time were particularly high for a number of reasons. I would note particularly the primitive battlefield medicine of the time, as medical-related casualties were fearful. Additionally, the war coincided with major advances in infantry weapons -- the rifled musket and, to a lesser extent, the breech-loader. It took quite some time for tactics to catch up to the realities of the battlefield, much as with World War I and the machine gun. — Lomn 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The weapons used at the time weren't conducive to minor wounds, either: the muskets of the time fired bullets that today would be considered small cannonballs. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressing myself to the first part of your question, 217.43, I do not think that Fighting Joe was the man who could have won that campaign. His plan was bold, but he simply lost the will and the ability to execute it; he had lost confidence, in other words, in Joe Hooker.

But looking at your question from a slightly difficult angle, I think George Mead was right: the Army of the Potomac could have pressed on despite the losses at Chancellorsville. After all, Mead's own V Corps had hardly been engaged. More than that, despite the heavy losses, the Army of the Potomac was still in better shape than Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Chancellorsville's was indeed Lee's masterpiece, a victory gained by a combination of audacity and tactical brilliance; but he and the Confederacy paid a heavy price. Proportionally his casualties were far greater than Hooker's, amounting to a staggering 25% of the total force engaged. What is worse, the Confederacy had reached a stage in the war where such high losses could not easily be made good.

The simple fact is the path to Richmond was never going to be easy. For as long as the Union army was commanded by generals who were in the habit of retreating at the first reverse no progress was going to be made. I am convinced that if US Grant had been in command, and even if he had suffered the same scale of defeat as Hooker, he would still have continued the advance, as he was to do the following year, time, and time and time again. By 1863 the Army of the Potomac had become a superb fighting force. It just needed the right man at its head. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The decision to advance or retreat after a battle comes from two different schools of thought. The early commanders of the Army of the Potomac were of the "decisive battle" school: they were looking for a decisive battle that would break and scatter the Army of Northern Virginia, leaving the road to Richmond open. When they failed to get such a battle, they would retreat and rebuild the army for another try. Grant was of the newer "campaign" school of thought: instead of trying to destroy the Army of Northern Virigina, he applied pressure to it, forcing it to either retreat or move out of his way, trusting his supply lines to make up for losses of men and materiel. --Carnildo (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

2008 US presidential Campiagn

Sirs, I am compiling a dossier on the present American presidential campaign, press cuttings, magazine articles and the like. At the moment I am looking for amusing comments on any of the main candidates that have appeared in the form of letters to the press. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Ward Jason (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I might just be able to help you, Ward! The Spectator, carried at article in the issue of 23 February by one Venetia Thompson, entitled Obama is the Othello for our times. I've been reading The Spectator for some years now, and I feel confident enough to say that this was possibly the silliest piece that it has ever carried. Let me give you a flavour:

Say a white girl introduces her new black boyfriend to her largely white group of school and university friends. He will be embraced into the fold like an old chum. But watch carefully and you might see one of her white male friends conspiratorially whisper in her ear 'So is it true what they say?' as soon as his back is turned.

Yes, it's as crass and stupid as that! This elicited a hilarious response in the letters page of the 8 March issue from a reader in North Kingstown, Rhode Island:

I am relieved to know that my concerns about the possibility of a President Obama are due not to any substantive matters but solely to my 'primeval racist fears of the black super-male.’

Before reading Venetia Thompson's article I had mistakenly attributed my opposition to Senator Obama to his hard-left notions about government policy. It is a comfort to know that objection-and others, such as his lack of executive experience and minimal tenure in national politics-are mere self-deluding artifices to conceal racism within my fearful and embittered psyche.

I can stop fretting now over superficialities-like not wanting my country to be led by a socialist-and focus on making amends for my thoughtcrimes. Thank you, Venetia, for helping me see the light. (Meanwhile, is it true what they say?)

Enjoy! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Confederate Emancipation Proclaimation

In late 1864, Davis authorized an envoy, Duncan Kenner to go to France and GB and offer emancipation for intervention, sacrificing slavery for independence. The war was fought to preserve slavery. So why would the Confederates strike such a dumb bargain?

Lotsofissues 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the period, but surely the fact that the confederates were obviously losing the war is relevant? Algebraist 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The war was not about slavery, it was, from the Confederate point of view, about states' rights. Corvus cornix_talk 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Corvus is right. Even the Union fought more for preservation of the Union than for slavery. Wrad (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The slavery issue with the Civil War is a product of revisionist history. In my history book when I was in grade school, it stated clearly that Lincoln demanded that all slaves be freed and the South revolted and immediately went to war with the North. There is no truth in that at all, but it is what was taught to every student who used the same text book. The goal is to rewrite history by repeatedly telling each generation the same thing until anyone who states what actually happened is deemed an idiot. -- kainaw™ 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the article Origins of the American Civil War shows that the reasons were much more complex than that. However, I think that the issue of slavery became the apple of discord/bone of contention before the civil war. Someone of the north would attack slavery passionately and someone of the south would defend his right to enslave blacks with tooth and claws. After the war there was trend to focus upon pre-war slavery by part of Northern historians and academics and upon states rights by part of their Southern counterparts. I particularly like this statement inside the article Lost Cause: "Stampp also mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States" as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat". Flamarande (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that the Civil War was not about slavery is, in fact, a revisionist position, since it ignores what Confederate leaders said about the meaning of the war at the time. (For example, Southern slave owners were not in favor of states' rights when it came to protecting slavery: the Southern demand for the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was the antithesis of states' rights.) A second claim—that the North went to war to end slavery—is also false, of course. I think people tend to realize that this second claim is false, which then seems to confuse some of them into thinking that the first claim—that the war was not about slavery—is valid. —Kevin Myers 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really revisionism if it's a grade school textbook? Do you think it would do any good to teach children anything more complex than that? They wouldn't understand, and they mostly think history is boring enough already. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kainaw, Ppl who believe the CONFEDERACY (not Union) didn't fight the war to preserve slavery should be deemed idiots. The casus belli is so plainly written. In the South Carolina secession document [7], what completely engrosses what they say? Lotsofissues 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.224.203 (talk)

Flamarande is right. The pernicious and tendentious revisionism has been from the pro-South side, which labored with unfortunate success for a long time to disguise the obvious, that the war was about slavery. The old saw was that if history is written by the victors, then it is clear the South won the war. The origins article here understates the past dominance of these views. The Southern position on states rights was not due to some inherent bias or philosophy compared to the North - it was an effect of its desire to have a local right to enslave, not an independent cause. If sectionalism was what it was about, why did Southern representatives wax wroth, practically foam at the mouth, when John Quincy Adams proposed the North secede from its slaveholding rump? If one understands how slavery was a cause of the other causes, one is left with little else. See Cornerstone Speech for more on Stephens' speech.4.234.135.242 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The simple way to demonstrate this is to look at the arguments for and documents of secession from the various states. Yes, it was about "states rights" -- solely, however, the right to own human beings as chattel slaves. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution as it existed in 1860 didn't give the federal government any authority to interfere with slavery within each individual state, and no mainstream northern politician ever claimed that the federal government had any authority to interfere with slavery within an individual state. So the Civil War wasn't originally about that issue. However, the origin of the Civil War was in fact very closely connected with the issue of the extension of slavery into the various mid-west territories, since the origin of the Republican Party (and the corresponding decline of the Whig Party) was closely connected with the repeal of the Compromise of 1850 by Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to Bleeding Kansas (a controversy which was exacerbated by the Dred Scott decision). The vice-president of the Confederacy himself said that racial supremacy as expressed through slavery was the foundation of the Confederacy in his infamous Cornerstone Speech. -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know that the constitution of the USA was a compromise in some delicate aspects. Let's wrap the issue up with: "If the Southern states had ended with slavery on their own (as the rest of the civilized world was slowly doing anyway) they wouldn't try to leave the Union in the first place (they would have been left in peace by the abolitionists - whose whole reason of being would cease to exist). Without an attempt to secede - and the Lincoln/Union's (North) reaction and determination of preserving it - there wouldn't be a American civil war. Flamarande (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming babies after dead siblings

It seems to have been usual in nineteenth-century England, at least, for a family to keep giving each newborn a certain name until one lived. For instance, if a Molly Smith died at age three, the next girl born to her parents would often be named Molly. Is there a name for this practice, and is it codified or sanctioned anywhere, such as in the Bible or in tradition or in imitation of blueblood practice? In other words, is there some reason for it beyond the obvious reasons that come to mind? --Milkbreath (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a practice of letting land with the lease to run for the length of the lifetimes of persons named in the lease (which seems to be related to pur autre vie). I have found this in relation to the practice in Ireland. Lease:

The frequent term of a lease was 21 or 31 years, known as a 'lease of years'. Alternatively land was leased for the life time of named individuals otherwise known as a 'lease of lives', eg. typically there were three named lives, including the tenant, his son and another named individual. The lease and rent agreement remained in force until the death of all three named persons. Some of the more prosperous tenants secured the right to get renewable leases for ever, or leases for several hundred years, which were essentially freehold in all but name. However over 80% of all tenancies in the mid nineteenth century were annually set, with no security and no formal lease.

The naming of several children with the same name was sometimes related to this type of lease, since only the name of the son, and the fact of his relationship was given, not the date of birth. I read this in the notes on a novel, and sadly can't remember which, so sorry, no ref. SaundersW (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Salvador Dali, his parents told him he was the reincarnation of his dead brother Salvador, who died 9 months before he was born. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Victorian era, but during the Middle Ages is was quite common to give children the same names -they didn't even need to die first! (eg. Two of the sons of John Paston, of Paston Letters fame, were named John, and both lived to adulthood.) Names were generally chosen to be meaningful in some way. Children were frequently named after their godparents, so if they all had the same names (or you reused godparents), then so be it. Family traditions also counted, so names were sometimes reused if the original bearer died, or several living children were named after key family members. Saints were also important: if you felt your family was blessed by a saint (or you were desirous of obtaining the blessing of a saint) then you might name a number of your children in recognition of that. But don't forget, these are their baptismal/legal names; they probably all had pet names that their family used. Whether this all instituted a tradition that continued into the 19th century would be speculation on my part, but someone else might know. Gwinva (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This practice has contributed to false claims of extreme age. Someone claims to be 112 years old. Records from long ago show a child of his name living with his parents, but that was his older brother and he was given the same name when he was born years later after the older brother died. Edison (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic but former US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger has three sons, all named Lawrence, but with different middle names. Tonzo (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lorna Doone

I'm reading Lorna Doone and there are some things I just can't get. Who are the men of Gotham (page 116)? What was the dispute between court and city mentioned on page 186 and what is the great conspiracy mentioned on page 187? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myra McCartney (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the book handy at the moment, but assume that he's referring to the legendary Fools of Gotham and the royal-parliamentarian tensions that led to the English Civil War... AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's on wikisource. The dispute is in 1683, so it's not civil war-related. The conspiracy is the Rye House Plot. Algebraist 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a BBC account of the Wise men of Gotham and their adventures with King John. The great dispute is explained in that paragraph: the court (of the king) wishes to appoint the chief officers of the Corporation of London, and the citizens maintain that they have the right to appoint the officers themselves. From the names Lord William Russell and Algernon Sidney, the great conspiracy would be the Rye House Plot. SaundersW (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Accounting practises for branch accounting

I am working for an organisation which has field offices around South India. All the expenses for the field offices are being sent by Head Office. what sort of accounts the branches should maintain ? Is there any book in India which can be referred for this purpose ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.81.248 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Profit centres or cost centres perhaps? 80.0.98.55 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discrete and Insular Minority

I have been trying to understand the legal meaning of this phrase for a paper I am writing. The phrase si first seen in Carolen Products v United States, Footnote Four in 1937. I understand what discrete means, as well as what insular means, but there is a great difference between the legal meaning of a word and the practical representation of the same word. If anyone could point me to any legal references, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.210.17 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital copy of House Bill 775?

Does anybody have a digital copy of House Bill 775 filed by Tim Couch (R-Ken) or where I could find one? I did some perusing of Kentucky's Legislature website to no avail. It's the bill proposing to make illegal anonymous posting on the internet, and I have a strong desire to read it. There's a fair amount of buzz on sites like Digg if you don't know what I'm talking about. Here7ic (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's proposed in the US house of representatives there's no reason it would be on the kentucky legislature website. —Random832 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Couch is a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives; this question concerns a bill introduced at the state level. The parenthetical notation after his name should read "R-Hyden". --LarryMac | Talk 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to the bill (MS Word format) on this page. Oh, and I suppose you could call him (R-90th) also. --LarryMac | Talk 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What is it with Kentucky and intellectually challenged people named Tim Couch? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What is Rep. Couch's relationship to the quarterback of the same name? They're both from Hyden. Corvus cornix_talk 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Machiavelli-the devil?

The church put Machiavelli's The Prince on its index of banned books, and it is sometimes said that Old Nick, another name for the devil, comes from his name. Is there a specifically anti-christian message in the Prince? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.7 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's definately an un-christian message contained there. Not much of 'the meek will inherit the earth' 'or blessed are the alms givers' type thought in there - maybe that's the reason?

If you search for the "prince machiavelli banned" it will turn up numerous essays explaining why the church found it unnaceptable87.102.94.48 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it was considered a satire at the time, such seeming cynicism? Does satire have a tendency towards papal bans?87.102.94.48 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The old Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about The Prince:

Again, a prince must keep clear of crime not only when it is hurtful to his interests but when it is useless. He should try to win the love of his subjects, by simulating virtue if he does not possess it; he ought to encourage trade so that his people, busied in getting rich, may have no time for politics; he ought to show concern for religion, because it is a potent means for keeping his people submissive and obedient. Such is the general teaching of the "Principe", which has been often refuted. As a theory Machiavellism may perhaps be called an innovation; but as a practice it is as old as political society. It was a most immoral work, in that it cuts politics adrift from all morality, and it was rightly put on the Index in 1559. It is worth noting that the "Principe" with its glorification of absolutism is totally opposed to its author's ideas of democracy, which led to his ruin. To explain the difficulty it is not necessary to claim that the book is a satire, nor that it is evidence of how easily the writer could change his political views provided he could stand well with the Medici. Much as Machiavelli loved liberty and Florence he dreamed of a "larger Italy" of the Italians. As a practical man he saw that his dream could be realized only through a prince of character and energy who would walk in the steps of Cæsar Borgia, and he conceded that the individual good must give way to the general well-being.

There is, I believe, some debate over whether Machiavelli was actually advocating the ideas contained in The Prince, or was just describing the fractious politics in the Italy of his day. Keep in my also that he was involved with the Florentine government that had kicked out the de Medici family, which hardly endeared him to the papacy. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, 217.42, let me give you just one reasonably well-known statement from Chapter Six of The Prince: "Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed." For Machiavelli this is the central lesson of history. But it is also a message that goes against that of the church: for the 'unarmed prophet' is Christ. The 'prophet armed' is, of course, Mohammed.

However, I do not think that 'Old Nick' was delivering am anti-Christian message as such. After all, for centuries the Christians had taken up arms, in wars both just and unjust. Machiavelli’s great crime was, as I have said on other occasions, to describe the practice of politics, free from ethical and theological fictions: for it was right, as he puts it, "to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined."

In essence, therefore, the message was a practical one; that in a world of deceit and treachery that those who seek to act virtuously in every way-to follow pure Christian doctrine, if you like-are on the road to self-destruction, not self-preservation. If the Prince is to maintain his rule he must learn "how not to be virtuous and make use of it according to need." Christ was shown the kingdoms of the world and rejected them. For the Prince Machiavelli repeats Satan's temptation, urging him to take up the sword for the sake of the good that can only be accomplished by the possession of power.

I do not in any way think that Machiavelli intended his brilliant little treatise as 'a satire', but an analysis of how attain power and, more important, how to hold it. In the treacherous world of sixteenth-century Italian realpolitik there is simply nothing to be gained from the exercise of virtue for the sake of virtue. The exhortations of his Humanist contemporaries, notably Thomas More and Erasmus, the Christian ethics they advance, were no more than a comforting illusion. It's acutely ironic that the Church, for all its disapproval, advanced men like Pope Julius II, for whom The Prince might very well have served as a personal manifesto. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In 17th-century English, there was even an eponymous word "Machiavel" which meant "an intriguer or unscrupulous schemer" (OED 1st edition). AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the fundamental difference between the mindset that produced The Prince and that which banned it would be this: Machiavelli is interested in how to keep power, and advocates what might be seen as extreme measures in doing so. The papal authority is (in theory, anyway) not interested in power, it is interested in human goodness. To them, the ends do not justify the means. Machiavelli would counter that such rank idealism ('everyone treat each other nicely!') produces worse conditions for the populace at large, and that by making a few brutal examples of your enemies, the greater happiness and harmony is achieved.

In summary: Machiavelli is pragmatic, the Church is idealistic. I leave it to the reader to decide which mindset is more conducive to a good life. Vranak (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the English popular mind of ca. 1600, I think that followers of Machiavelli and Jesuits were at least vaguely associated with each other, since both groups were considered to follow an amoral or immoral "by any means necessary" or "the end justifies the means" philosophy, which would permit lying and committing crimes in order to achieve a desired goal... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The modern English equivalent is the adjective "Machiavellian". --Carnildo (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Southern States: which US states are "southern"

Ancestry in the 2000 census

Which U.S. states are considered as Southern due to their Southern accent and history of slavery?

Have you read Southern United States? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"The South" has always been hard to define. One definition is "where kudzu grows." A good sociological one might be where a plurality of people in the 2000 census considered their ancestry to be "American" or "African American." (outside of Northern urban counties with large black populations) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Counties with Baptists as the leading church body, as in this map, make a semi-decent delineation -- with a few caveats perhaps. Pfly (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

the Confederate States of America

Those states which formed the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War are, from a historic perspective, the Southern States. These states ceded from the union over the issue of slavery. C mon (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The CSA seceded over the issue of states rights. Slavery was brought into the equation by Abe Lincoln halfway through the war in order to convince the European Empires to support his side. After the war ended, the Union did everything within its power to revise history to make it show that the war was always about the protection of human dignity. It wasn't. Ninebucks (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ninebucks, if you go back and read the debates over secession in the Southern legislatures and newspapers, it's clear that secession was almost entirely about slavery and the fear that slavery was under threat. I think you have the slavery issue as a whole mixed up with the issue of abolition, which was not adopted as a Northern strategy until a couple years into the war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Disraeli and Jewishness

Benjamin Disraeli famously defended his Jewish ancestry but could it not be said that in some of his published writing he actualy provided grounds for anti-semitic conspiracy theory? I understand that he may even have been responsible for giving Gobineau inspiration for his theory of races, though I cannot trace the source of this story. Do any of you know anything about this? 86.157.194.63 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean his novels, 86.157, when you refer to his 'published writings’? It is here that he advances a view of human history based on the pre-eminence of race. Anyway, here is what he says about the Jews in Coningsby;

And at this moment, in spite of centuries, of tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws, which you still obey; of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect. You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate. The first Jesuits were Jews; that mysterious Russian diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organised and principally carried on by Jews; that mighty revolution which is at the moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs in Germany...(1844, pp. 182-3).

It's all really terribly silly, a form of bragging not taken at all seriously in his homeland; but on the Continent it was fuel for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which were to proceed, with variations on this basic theme, right into the twentieth century.

So far as I am aware the theory that Disraeli met and advised Gobineau on matters of race was first put forward by one Karl Koehne, a German author, in an essay published in 1926. It's complete nonsense. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget about one of the all-time great comebacks, albeit perhaps apocryphal, in political history (perhaps mixed up with a similar retort by Judah Benjamin). In a debate with an Irish opponent, Disraeli took a remark as a slight against his heritage. He responded: "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Mwalcoff, the facts are are not quite as straightforward as often assumed! The 'Irish opponent' of Disraeli was none other than the Great Liberator himself. Now while O’Connell’s remarks were anti-Disraeli, rather than anti-Semitic, Disraeli's response was most definitely anti-Irish, using imagery that would have been readily understood by a mid-nineteenth century Victorian audience. Anyway, I've copied below a response I gave to this last March.

I suspect the remark in question may have been made in an exchange with Daniel O'Connell during the Taunton by-election of 1835 (which Disraeli lost) rather than in Parliament. Disraeli did not enter Parliament until July 1837, as the member for Maidstone. To be fair, insult had been traded for insult, and Disraeli had previously referred to O'Connell as an 'incendiary and a traitor.' The two men even came close to fighting a duel. Disraeli, in point of fact, was not a practicing Jew, but a Christian. Jews, as such, were not allowed entry to Parliament until 1858. Clio the Muse 01:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Right folks, I've now managed to track this down, with some degree of difficulty, I have to say. It is a popular misconception that the remark was made in the Commons; it was not: it appeared in an open letter in The Times in 1835, addressed to Daniel O'Connell. During the Taunton by-election Disraeli, standing as a Tory, attacked the Whigs and their alliance with O'Connell, and the Irish radicals, in highly immoderate terms. He was particularly offensive in his remarks about the great Liberator. In response O'Connell, no less skilled in invective, denounced him as the 'worst possible type of Jew'-He has just the qualities of that impertinent thief on the cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, that same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude. Disraeli responded by challenging O'Connell's son, Morgan, to a duel; and when this was refused his letter with the famous quote was published. O'Connell was not, in fact, denouncing Disraeli as a Jew as such, but as the descendent of a criminal. Disraeli took the occasion not just to celebrate a more elevated Jewish ancestry-the priests in the temple-, but to denounce the 'savage' Irish, in terms that would have appealed to all the prejudices of Victorian England. The whole matter, therefore, is not quite as simple as conventionally depicted. The details of the quarrel can be found in Disraeli by Sarah Bradford, published by Weidenfield and Nicholson in 1982 (and which I have just hooked out from our library). Clio the Muse 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Clio -- interesting that at least one "apocryphal" story is actually true. My guess is that like many a politician, Disraeli had the line "in the bank," waiting for the first excuse to use it. Just like Lloyd Bentsen when he humiliated Dan Quayle with the Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy line. Quayle hadn't really compared himself to Kennedy; he had simply compared the length of his congressional service to that of JFK. But you can't leave a comeback like that sitting in the closet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote does seem to be apocryphal. The quarrel is described in Disraeli by Sarah Bradford on p.81 of both the London edition and the 1983 New York edition published by Stein and Day but though O'Connell's words are mentioned (without any reference) she doesn't mention the quote and Disraeli's response is only referred to as appearing in a letter in The Times, no date mentioned. David Cesarani also describes the quarrel on pp.68-70 of Disraeli: The Novel Politician published by Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016 in their Jewish Lives series. He quotes both O'Connell and Disraeli, referring to the edition of Disraeli's letters edited by M. G. Wiebe et al. published by the University of Toronto Press, 1989. He also does not mention the quote. The Times Digital Archive has an exchange of letters between Disraeli and Daniel O'Connell and his son Wednesday, May 06, 1835 (the source is given as pg. 3; Issue 15783) but the quote does not appear. Sue Brewton in her July 16, 2016 at 8:56 pm reply to David L. after her "No, Benjamin Disraeli did not write that." post on https://suebrewton.com/2016/04/30/no-benjamin-disraeli-did-not-write-that/ describes the quote as "more legend than fact" and then quotes a “famous apocryphal story” Emmanuel Nathan and Anya Topolski "Is there a Judeo-Christian Tradition?" with its URL, as well as including URLs for The Yale Book of Quotations and Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Mcljlm (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Classical or pastiche? Dido and Aeneas

I have a printed page before me with forty or fifty lines written in a classical or mock-classical tone. It begins "Oh, sorrow crowned love of my life, why hast thou forsaken me? Am I not fair? I have loved thee long, and all the places of silence know my wailings. I have loved thee beyond life with all its sweetness, and the sweetnesses have turned to cloves and to almonds..." and it ends "May the gods bless thee and sustain thee, oh light, and may their judgment not come too heavy upon thee for this thing thou hast done. Aeneas, I burn for thee! Fire, be my last love!"

Anyone know what this is? Obviously the Aeneid is the first port of call, but I would have thought some googling would throw one of these lines up, but so far, nothing. FreeMorpheme (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would guess the lines are spoken when Aeneas meets Dido in the Underworld in Book VI. I don't have a copy of the work handy, though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear to be directly from any straight translation of the Aeneid, Obiterdicta: neither in the underworld, nor when Dido earlier threw herself in the flames. But it is clearly based on this episode. Nor is it closely related to anything in the libretto of Purcell's Dido and Aeneas. I do like the lines! They look latish-19th-century mock-archaic, to me. I am reminded of these lines from Leonard Cohen's song "Joan of Arc":

"then fire, make your body cold,

I’m going to give you mine to hold,"

Saying this she climbed inside

To be his one, to be his only bride.

Same general theme. But she died a virgin...

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor to Marlowe's Dido, Queen of Carthage. [Christopher Marlowe, Dido, Queen of Carthage] SaundersW (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a superdelegate

If Eliot Spitzer should step down as Governor of New York prior to the Democratic Convention, would he lose his Superdelegate status? How would his superdelegate vote be replaced? Corvus cornix_talk 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, he'd lose the spot, as he'd no longer be governor. Lt. Gov. David Paterson is already an at-large superdelegate as a DNC member; I guess he could step down from his DNC position, and it could be filled by someone else? Regardless, subtract one from the Clinton column for the meantime. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Interesting blog post: Would Spitzer Lose His Superdelegate Vote? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both. That slate post is informative. Corvus cornix_talk 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Books on Sexual Practices & General Sexuality in America 1900-1940 Needed

Hello,

I'm currently doing a research paper for my American History Class. My topic is "Sex, Sexuality and Sexual Attitudes in Early 20th Century America, 1900-1940". I have tons of sources on feminism & women's rights, gay & lesbian history and gender roles, but I can't find many sources relating directly to sexual practices and other "in the bedroom" information of around that time. I've got the "Sexuality" and "Sexual Attitudes" but not the "Sex". Can anyone point me in the direction of some good books on this particular theme so that I can order them from the library?

Thanks, Slayton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.246.235 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The classic is the Kinsey Report, though how valid its statistics were is a matter of dispute. AnonMoos (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kinsey Report was published in the fifties. I need books both from and about sex from 1900-1940. ~Slayton~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.242.162 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

However, much of the data for the Kinsey report was collected in retrospective life interviews, conducted beginning in 1938... Another interesting source might be the Middletown studies. They probably don't contain any sexual statistics as such, but from some abstracted excerpts I once read, they apparently include detailed insights into changing courtship customs and attitudes from ca. 1890-1937... AnonMoos (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See Ideal Marriage: Its Physiology and Technique (book) by van de Velde from 1926. The article about that book includes links to other sources of info on such books from the era you are interested in. It was a widely cited and reportedly wildly wrong book of that era, per later writers such as Masters and Johnson. The Van de Veld book was also sold under the English title "Perfect Marriage." You might wish to compare the first edition with the later revisions, since it has been brought up to date. Edison (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck on finding anything accurate and direct for the early C20. There will be plenty of circumlocutions, but your best bet might be a bit of lateral thinking. For example, look for surrogate indicators: venereal disease (as they called it then) will rise and fall, and you can extrapolate. Another useful phrase to search for is "sexual hygiene" -- the latter word means healthiness in general, not washing behind one's ears. You might find many promising books with that in the title. Whatever they inveigh against must have been popular enough to command attention. No use in fulminating against lesbianism if no one was doing it. Vibrators began to be sold to individuals (previously only doctors had used them on "hysterical" female patients -- yes, really). Finally, I know she wasn't American, but read up on Marie Stopes and her crusading attitude, including Married Love. PS Forgot to sign but it was me (and why didn't it get autosigned in 24 hours?) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I haven't been signed autobotically at times lately, either. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

March 11

Philosophy of Law

I got three questions: 1) In the 1950s, the federal government enacted legislation that forcibly removed some Inuit groups from their land and relocated them to Ellesmere and Cornwallis islands in the Far North a) What argument would Cicero have offered against such legislation? b) According to John Austin, why would such legislation be acceptable? c) Would this plan be contrary to John Stuart Mill's theory of utilitarianism? Explain d) Thomas Hobbes and Aquinas would have had opposing views on this issue. What would they have said about this legislation?

2)During WWII, the Cdn. gov't enacted legislation that put many Japanese in prisoner-in-war camps and confiscated their property, fearing they might be spies, or might collaborate with the enemy. What would Aristotle, Plato, or Cicero have thought about such legislation? Explain.

3)In the Murdoch case in 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Ms. Murdoch was not entitled to receive a share of the family property after her husband sold their farm and their marriage broke down. What would Cicero and John Austin think of this law?

By the way, this is not homework but, opinion questions.

Don Mustafa Toronto, Ontario, Canada 20:15 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of an aasignment, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not for a moment think this is a homework assignment; or, if it is, it is in the form that might have been handed out in Plato's Academy! Anyway, it's hopelessly ambitious. It would require an enormous amount of basic research to formulate an answer. But, to be frank, I suspect there is a certain amount of 'playing' here; a tune to which I, for one, am not prepared to dance. It strikes me as being altogether bogus. I am sorry to be so direct. Clio the Muse (talk)

Actually, it kind of does sound like the type of homework assignment a Canadian teacher might give. Canadians, of course, have to find a Canadian angle to everything, including Plato! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it does sound like that (argh, the memories!), but not quite, since it's kind of impossible to answer. Did Don have a class where all this was specifically taught? Otherwise what on earth do any of these things have to do with each other? Don doesn't usually ask homework-ish questions, but he does always ask pretty bizarre ones... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these really like canadian homework questions - wow - is this how the canadian mind works?

With all respect to the original poster - too many questions at once, and too obscure to expect people to give opinions on all of them. Note: you would be asking for example to give opinions based on 'moral systems' set out in books to various cases. Saying 'what would cicero think' sounds very schoolish - why not try again with 'comment on this using Thomas Hobbes work as a specific reference' - it might not be your homework - so please don't give us uneccessary homework to do too!87.102.14.194 (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, not exactly, but we like to think there is a Canadian connection to everything. Canada's role in world history is often extremely overstated. You know, we burned down the White House, we won both World Wars, that kind of thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you burned down the Pink House, and then we white-washed it - forever sealing pink's demise as a fashionable colour. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Canada's role in world history is often extremely overstated". I don't think that's what you meant. It implies everyone thinks Canada had a bigger role than it really does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is exactly what he meant. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For "everyone", read "all Canadians". Canadians think Canada has had a wide impact on the world stage. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

history of languages - a 'taxonomy'

Hi.! Can someone link me to a 'taxonomy' of human languages, or the relavent page, specifically I'm trying to find a page that describes a link (if any) between the indo-european languages, and the other language groups (chinese or whatever) - is there a common root etc. Just a link would do - I just seem to get lost when searching as I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject. Thanks.87.102.14.194 (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The possibility of a link between all languages is a very controversial subject in linguistics. We have lots of articles about it though - Nostratic, Proto-World, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ok that got me going - thanks.87.102.14.194 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

indo / turkic / sino

1. Does turkic/altaic language in any way form a link between the two others?

2. The difference between 'east' and 'west' seems to go back a long way - is there anything other than speculation that can be solidly said about this human separation (either in terms of language or genetics?

3. Any theories that make a connection between the 'naturally developed language' and 'race' eg does a language preference have racial underpinings - is there any evidence that a person of a particular type would prefer to speak a specific language eg tongue structure making one language easier or more natural to speak?87.102.14.194 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Linguists have not been able to make any real progress in substantially reconstructing proto-languages before about 5000 B.C., and all the "macro" hypotheses such as Nostratic etc. remain unproven.

2) There is absolutely no necessary correlation between language and "race" -- babies of any "race" can learn any language, if brought up surrounded by that language. Furthermore, since the days of Franz Boas, it has been recognized that there's no such thing as a "primitive language" among natively-spoken human languages (i.e. not contact pidgins). AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of a predisposition to certain vowel/consonent sounds - that over time might cause languages to diverge - otherwise I totally accept your answer. Thanks87.102.14.194 (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe any such predispostion exists. It is not unusual that you think it might: Korean parents are so keen to get their kids to learn prefect English pronunciation that they pay for oral surgery to cut the frenulum, the membrance that restricts the tongue, in the quest for the L and R sounds. [8] But you know what? Ethnic Korean kids born into the Anglosphere have perfect English pronunciation. It isn't any putative racial difference in tongues that matter. It is the sounds and language(s) one is exposed to as an infant and child. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. #2—East and West correspond to the directions the sun rises and sets, the major time-setting event in human lives (and one that has many cultural manifestations, even today, when nighttime no longer means total darkness for most). That's probably the major reason for the universal(?) distinction. Re. #3—I can't think of a plausible reason for there to be anything like a correlation between biological notions of race and language. Infants babble in all phonemes, I recall reading once. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mhm I think you answered a different question in No.2 than the one I had in mind, never mind - I was sort of asking the reverse question - ie what can we tell about a ('hypothetical') parting of the peoples into different 'races' (ie people living in the east ie asia and west ie europe etc) in terms of their language ie can language be used as a archaeological tool in terms of prehistory of human migration.. It wasn't very clear I can see that now.

If it's true that all babies babble the same that would be most interesting..87.102.74.53 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if you're asking about whether linguistic information can be used to tell us about human evolution, that's certainly been studied very intensively. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has done some interesting work correlating linguistic, archeological, and genetic information about humans to try and create a comprehensive synthetic treatment to the question of human migrations. It's controversial, of course, to link something as cultural as languages with biology, but there is some serious study of it. His The History and Geography of Human Genes is an interesting read even if you skip the hardcore science sections. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Cavalli-Sforza's broad sweeping linguistic conclusions have been considered unconvincing by most linguists... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I noted it was controversial. :-) But I don't know of anyone else who is well known for trying to do that sort of thing since the development of modern genetics. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

yes that was what I was asking for, thanks.87.102.17.32 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Physical geography shows why links between East and West have followed just three channels. The Burma-Assam tropical link, with the Tibetan barrier north of it; the Silk Road link, probably as old as Homo erectus, with impassable desert north of it; the Eurasian steppe, a grassland connector for herders, with tundra north of it, a barrier which requires specialists. All cultural history uses these three routes until sea routes open. --Wetman (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon in 1813-14

Considering that the Russian campaign had been such a serious disaster for France I would be interested to know how and by what means Napoleon was able to recover to fight the campaign of 1813-14? Where did the troops come from? Did he try to keep his allies onside? What military tactics did he follow and what were the factors leading to his ultimate downfall?217.42.109.254 (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The new army in 1813, and it was essentially a new army, came from a variety of places. First of all, there were the remnants of the old army, largely the parts which had never gone into Russia since little came out, but much of that was under siege in Danzig and the rest. The next step was to collect all of the soldiers who were left in depots in France, certainly these ran into the tens of thousands. Next, the navy, especially the corps of naval gunners who were more soldierly than the rest, provided thousands of men. The 1813 class of conscripts, and many who had been exempted in earlier years, were called up. Most of the Italian army was sent to Germany. Troops were collected from Spain. The Saxons and Bavarians and the rest of France's German allies were expected to provide sizable new contingents. Poles, Spanish and Neapolitans also formed part of the Grand Army in 1813. The army in 1814 was mainly French, no more Dutch or German or Italian "Frenchmen" then, and included lots of underage conscripts, the Marie Louises.

War of the Sixth Coalition and the various battle articles explain what happened. The introduction to the Sixth Coalition gives you an idea of what to expect: "The final stage of the war, the defence of France, saw the Emperor temporarily regain his former mastery; he repulsed vastly superior armies in the Six Days Campaign, which many believe to be the most brilliant feat of generalship of his illustrious career." Hmm, so how come this genius lost?

Well, it's a fair question. He lost in 1814 because no matter how clever he was, and how well he did in one minor battle, while he was winning that pointless victory other Allied armies were plodding on towards Paris. And when he moved to the next one, the one he'd beaten got moving again. The explanation is not unlike why the Confederates lost when Grant came on the scene: by 1814 nothing short of a miraculous destruction of an Allied army would stop it picking itself up after a defeat and advancing again.

The problem in 1813 was not dissimilar, especially after the Austrians joined the war. There was only one Napoleon, the rest of the French high command were fairly ordinary. Take the victory at the Battle of Dresden at the end of August. Yes, that's a significant win for Napoleon, but a week earlier Oudinot had lost at the Battle of Großbeeren, and in the week that followed MacDonald lost badly at the Battle of Katzbach and Vandamme lost half his army at the Battle of Kulm. The week after that the last French advance on Berlin ended with a defeat for Ney's army at the Battle of Dennewitz. This led to the Bavarians joining the Allies. Like Lee in Virginia, Napoleon could usually do well in battles where he was present, but the 1813 campaign was fought over a very large area, the "German front" extending from around Hamburg to near Breslau (modern Wrocław) with other armies in Italy and Spain, so he usually wasn't present.

1813-1814 didn't see any tactical innovations. The French army was much less professional and the Allies didn't have any particularly innovative commanders. It did see one technical innovation. Congreve rockets were used at the Battle of Leipzig, their first major land battle, with rather mixed results. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did Napoleon lose? Like Hannibal he couldn't be everywhere at once. A good way to defeat a military genius is to attack at several fronts at the same time. Flamarande (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have one or two additional points. Napoleon hoped to raise a new army of 650,000 men, of which only 140,000 would be recruited in France itself. As well as drawing from every available pool, including the gendarmerie and the National Guard, he trawled the French peasantry once again, moving further and further down the age scale. The whole thing was deeply unpopular, as was the additional burden of taxation. By in large it was an army of older men and raw recruits, with few experienced officers. There was also a serious shortage of horses for the cavalry to replace the huge losses suffered during the Russian campaign.

He managed to preserve his alliance with most of the minor German states, though he lost Prussia and then Austria. The Prussian change of side was particularly serious because, thanks to the brilliant planning and organisation of August von Gneisenau, they were immediately able to raise an additional force of 80,000 men to join with the 200,000 advancing westwards from Russia and 40,000 Swedes under Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, the renegade Marshall. Napoleon did try to keep Austria 'onside', as you have put it, 217.42, but the terms offered by Metternich were framed in a way that would have been impossible for him to accept.

The counter the forces moving against him on a wide front from the east he attempted to use his old tactic of divide and rule, with rapid marches and maneuvers, with the intention of defeating each of the hostile forces in detail. He behaved with his usual boldness and élan, hoping to bring superior force to bear to destroy one enemy army before moving on to another, the tactic that had served him so well in the campaign of 1805. But the Allies had developed an effective counter-strategy-the Trachenberg Plan-which required each army when under attack to withdraw and liaise with the others. Napoleon also made some serious errors, especially in the wide dispersal of his armies, and in his over reliance on inferior commanders. It added to his misfortune that the Allies possessed in Gebhard von Blücher a skilled old war-horse-and an innovative commander-, who played a brilliant cat-and-mouse game. In the end Napoleon simply could not get the kind of knock-out victory that he so desperately needed. As Blücher's army surged back and forward across Germany, by October 1813 the only ally Napoleon had left was Saxony.

It is possible that Napoleon could have won if the Allies had behaved in the same amateurish fashion as they had during the War of the Third Coalition; but they did not. At the Battle of Leipzig his army was faced with a concentrated and superior force, the nightmare he had tried to inflict on others. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor point: weren't Congreve Rockets used at the Battle of New Orleans? Rhinoracer (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but that was two years after Leipzig. The War of 1812 was rather longer than its name suggests!

Being and Nothingness: political commentary?

Considering Sartre's magnum opus was published in 1943 during the occupation I was wondering if it had anything to say about the political situation of the day? Do any of Sartre's other works have any bearing here? Why were the Germans so indulgent towards expressions of French intellectual life? F Hebert (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Envisage, if you can, Paris in 1943: a bleak place, one where the arena of personal freedom was growing more circumscribed by the day. In the streets, alongside the German occupiers, there were French Fascist auxiliaries of one kind or another, with links to Marcel Déat and others among the so-called Paris Collaborators. The previous year all French Jews had been required to wear the yellow star, not by order of the Germans, but on the initiative of Darquier de Pellepoix, Vichy's Commissioner for Jewish Affairs. Round-ups and deportations were now a regular occurrence. Through the city German propaganda, evoking final victory, was an ever-present feature of life in public places. Denunciations, anonymous letters and police raids wee a constant threat. France has been seized by a Judeo-Bolshevik phobia. The atmosphere is stifling.

So, for Sartre, and every other Frenchman, objective freedom has all but gone. It is against this background that Being and Nothingness, was published, a profoundly Cartesian work, one where subjective forms of freedom find their greatest defence. There, in subjective consciousness, lies the origin of one's absolute freedom, one that is shaped in a state of permanent criticism. All labels are rejected-"How them shall I experience the objective limits of my being: Jew, Aryan, ugly, handsome, kind, a civil servant, untouchable, etc.-when will speech have informed me as to which of these are my limits?" It is from these labels that alienation and inauthenticity are created: "Here I am-Jew or Aryan, handsome or ugly, one armed etc. All this for the Other with no hope of apprehending this meaning which I have outside and still, more important, with no hope of changing it...in a more general way the encounter with a prohibition in my path ('No Jews allowed here')...can only have meaning only on and through the foundations of my free choice. In fact according to the free possibilities which I choose, I can disobey the prohibition, pay no attention to it, or, on the contrary, confer upon it a coercive value which it can hold only because of the weight I attach to it."

Sartre's theory of freedom is expressed, for the most part, in highly abstract terms, but it still has to be read against a specific historical background. The call for freedom, and the parallel denunciation of all forms of bad-faith, was never more meaningful in Nazi France.

Why did the Germans allow this, F Hebert? Well, because they operated in some areas a fairly relaxed censorship policy, especially over such abstract works as Being and Nothingness. It also helped if the author expressed an anti-German message which the Germans themselves could not understand, as Sartre did in his play, No Exit, which concludes with his most famous quote "Hell is other People", or "l'enfer, c'est les autres" in French. By this time the French ad long ceased to refer to the occupiers as Boches-they were, quite simply, Les autres. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clio. Arising from that, why weren't the Germans (Nazis) even a little bit suspicious if it was something intellectual that they couldn't understand? Was this a blindness in occupied France but not in other countries they occupied? I might have missed the point, though Julia Rossi (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the censors in Paris probably could understand Being and Nothingness reasonably well, Julia; it was really a question of what kind of impact such am abstruse work was likely to have. It has to be said that the German authorities, in Paris at least, acted with quite a high degree of liberality when it came to certain areas of French intellectual life, much more so than they did elsewhere in Europe, especially in places-like Poland-where all intellectual freedom was ruthlessly suppressed. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thinking Poland, was there a reason for this difference, or was there nothing as abstruse being published in Poland? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the Polish experience of the war was much harsher than that of Western Europe. It's relatively easy to find the pages (eg. Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, but the German occupation of Poland began with mass arrests of intellectuals and the ghetto-isation of the Jews, and things got very much worse from there. By the end of the war, Poland had lost between 20-25% of her population. There wasn't much scope for an intellectual life, but you might want to check Józef Czapski and Pope John Paul II (who was a seminarian in Krakow at the time). --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would endorse what Major Bonkers has written here, Julia. Like almost everything else in the Nazi scheme of things, there was no consistency in occupation policy, which varied quite widely from country to country, and even from region to region. But it was unremittingly harsh in Poland. The long-term intention was to turn what was left of the country into a source of helot labour for the Thousand Year Reich, people who would only need the most basic levels of education. Soon after the victory over Poland in 1939 intellctuals, university teachers and specialists of all sorts were rounded up and murdered, some in concentration camps, others by Einsatzgruppen. The aim was to deprive the Polish people of any kind of leadership, or leadership potential.

In relation to the last point I made above about Nazi censorship policy in Paris, I may have conveyed the wrong impression in saying that it helped if the Germans did not understand an author's inner meaning. It would be better to say that, in the age old battle between censorship and freedom, the subtleties of language have been used to overcome artificial obstacles of all sorts. In hearing that hell was 'the others' a French audience at the time would have been fully aware of the author's true meaning. But if challenged by the Germans it would be easy enough for Sartre to pass it off as a simple statement, fully consistent with the theme of the play. So far as I am aware, he never was challenged. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Henry Rudolf de Salis, UK, businessman and author, 1866-1936

I am looking for biographical information about the life, career and family of Henry Rudolf de Salis. I know that the de Salis family originated in Switzerland and has branches in the UK and Australia. Henry Rudolf de Salis was a director and the Chairman of an English canal carrying comany called Fellows, Morton & Clayton. He wrote "Bradshaw's Canals and Navigable Rivers of England and Wales" first published in 1904. Andries van de Boom Andries van de Boom (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on John Francis Charles, 7th Count de Salis-Soglio, who appears to be Henry Rodolph's brother. It contains some outline information about Henry Rodolph, and some of the references at the bottom of the article may be useful. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Saints: Black Madonna of Częstochowa

Does anyone know the saints by our lady the Black Madonna of Częstochowa in this mosaic ? Bewareofdog 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Researching... but here is a photo showing the mosaic on the outside of the basilica. SaundersW (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

From the attributes, and from the various histories of the icon, my guess is that the figure on the left with the book is St Luke the Evangelist who is supposed to have painted the icon of the Black Madonna in the basilica, and the figure to the right in monk's robes is Saint Paul of Thebes after whom the order of monks who held the icon is named. Sorry, no positive information. SaundersW (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you for sure, Bewareofdog, and maybe SaundersW is right, but considering that the two men have no halos, they might not be saints at all. It could be that they are King John II Casimir of Poland (though you can't be sure as he's not wearing a crown) and Abbot Augustyn Kordecki. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. There are very few clues to their identity, and apart from the book, no strong reason to identify the left hand figure as an evangelist. Neither have enough attributes to make any positive identification. The date on the mosaic is 2000 and the signature if "FAVRET - ITALY". SaundersW (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is Fabiano Favret from Pietrasanta.[9]  --Lambiam 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And the link that Lambiam provided confirms my guess: the two men in the mosaic are King John Casimir and Father Augustyn Kordecki. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

EEUU: meaning of this abbreviation?

Why does this redirect to USA? What does it stand for? - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Estados Unidos" is abbreviated as "EEUU" (also: EE. UU.) because in Spanish the abbreviation for a plural item doubles the letter of the abbreviation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a section of an article about plural acronyms, although the doubling thing only gets one paragraph: Acronym_and_initialism#Representing_plurals_and_possessives. --Allen (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This only works if each of the pluralized terms is abbreviated into one single letter (as is this case, in which E stands for Estados and U for Unidos. The correct form of the abbreviation is "EE. UU.".

Another example is FF. AA., Fuerzas Armadas (Military Forces). Pallida  Mors 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, in English, we write "pp." for "pages", and "Ss." for "Saints". There are probably other examples. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A case in which a two-letter abbreviation is pluralized by the doubling of only one letter is MSS for "manuscripts." Deor (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And there's "opp.", the plural of "op." (opus). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my previous statement: I was speaking of Spanish rules of pluralization. Pallida  Mors 16:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew that; my comment was a tangential observation rather than an attempt to contradict you. (I certainly don't want to get on the wrong side of pallida mors.) Deor (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL... Greetings. Pallida  Mors 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dickens on Social Class

What was Charles Dicken's views on social class? How are these views expressd in his novels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs 'Arris (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to read them. Of course, if you only wan't to know for an exam or term paper, you won't bother, but it will be your loss. AllenHansen (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

His protagonists are almost always solid, hard-working middle-class types, such as would appeal in the Victorian reading public. Excepting Oliver Twist and Great Expectations, none of his novels has a central working-class hero or heroine; and even Oliver is found to come from solid stock in the end, and Pip is taken far beyond his lowly origins.. What his novels express above all, though, is the distaste the new aspiring middle-class have for traditional elites; either narrow in vision, like Sir Leicester Deadlock in Bleak House; predatory and treacherous, like Sir Mulberry Hawk in Nicholas Nickleby, or foppish and stupid, like Sir Mulberry's friend, Lord Frederick Verisopht. Even Steerforth, whom Dickens’s treats with a degree of sympathy in David Copperfield, has a languid and amoral quality that the author always associates with a certain kind of decadent upper-class seducer. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's Eugene Wrayburn... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Our Mutual Friend, my favourite! Eugene Wrayburn pursues Lizzie Hexam with the same selfish determination as Steerforth pursued Little Emily. The end result may have been the same but for the murderous attack of Bradley Headstone, which serves to redeem Eugene, who marries Lizzie on what he supposes is his death bed. A better example from the novel of a 'toff' with a degree of moral sense would have been Mortimer Lightwood, though he only ventures the mildest of criticism against his friend's earlier conduct. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mortimer Lightwood is more of an ordinary conventional "young gentleman of leisure" character (without pronounced individual character traits or eccentricities) -- as opposed to Eugene Wrayburn's striking pose of a languid dandy -- and is also a less central character in the book's plot. Not sure I see too much in common between the basic personalities of Steerforth and Wrayburn, but there's only a little bit of difference between Eugene Wrayburn and Jem Harthouse... AnonMoos (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Any heaven in Judaism? If not, why bother?

It is not very clear, from the articles I've looked at here, if there is anything like a heaven in Judaism. If there is not (either being nothing, or being the same for 'saints' and 'sinners') then what motivates Jewish people to continue with their religious observances? 80.0.102.233 (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the "world to come") might be useful. Algebraist 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The second half of your question is interesting to me, though I come at it from a different angle: What are the different motivations for religious practice, and how do we predict who will share which motivations? I can't find much on Wikipedia about this question... I would have expected it to be at Psychology of religion, but there are only a few hints there. --Allen (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Generally, pressure from the family and community is what keeps Jewish people Jewish. And, of course, a genuine belief among many people that it's the right thing to do. Some Jewish people might believe that failing to abide by God's commandments may lead to divine punishment on this world, but I would guess that most people nowadays see the warnings of Deuteronomy as warnings to the community as a whole and/or warnings that people who abandon the Torah's moral principles will wind up screwing up their own lives. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that many "Jewish people" identify as such with little or no regard for the religious aspect and its theological and eschatological framework. If the query is why Jews practice Judaism (the religion)— whether halachic or less so—consider that it has a great deal to do with how to live decently in this world. -- Deborahjay (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008

If you want an interesting, funny, and certainly non-canonical take on it, get a copy of Shalom Auslander's Foreskin's Lament, in which he compares Orthodox Judaism (a tradition in which he was raised) with Stockholm syndrome, prisoners held hostage by an angry God who in turn worship him. It's a really funny hilarious book, though probably less so if you are an Orthodox Jew! --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

March 12

human flagpoles

A previous questioner's too homework-like query reminded me of something I had got nowhere investigating. I too had heard that (in the 1950s?) the Canadian government had moved a handful of Inuit families hundreds or thousands of kms to an otherwise uninhabited island, for the sole purpose of claiming that this bit of the high Arctic was Canadian by virtue of being lived on by Canadian citizens. They transported and stranded those families there without any real consent and without even sufficient supplies. The phrase that got attached to this scandal was "human flagpoles" -- people moved around like pawns on the geopolitical chessboard.

A) Can anyone substantiate this?

B) Have there been other examples in other countries of a government moving a few people to an empty land in order to claim it? Note that this was in no sense a mass population movement, and nor was there any question of pushing others off their territory. It really was terra nulis.

All of this has increased relevance with the melting of the Northwest Passage. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two settlements in northern Canada that originated with the forced relocation of Inuits: Resolute and Grise Fiord. Marco polo (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Marco Polo, for answering A). Your links had references, one of which is a 1994 report in which The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples called the forced relocation “one of the worst human rights violations in the history of Canada.” So can anyone help with B? Any worldwide examples? And where exactly was the phrase used? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Enjoyable, readable ancient classics?

I enjoyed reading The Golden Ass in translation - it was both interesting and perhaps more importantly of a style easy to read for a modern reader (which may be due to the translation more than the original perhaps). I also enjoyed reading the Satyricon. I found The Odyssey on the other hand, hard work and only got half-way though it. Are there any other clasical texts that are both easy and enjoyable reads please? 80.0.102.233 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of Virgil's stuff is really beautiful, but for a modern reader of English, I suggest off the top of my head Ovid's Metamorphoses . Pallida  Mors 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bits of Herodotus are fun, if you skip the battles. Ancient Greek comedies like Aristophanes are very amusing if you have a good translation (The Frogs and The Birds, for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you liked the Golden Ass and Satyricon, you will definitely like the Metamorphoses suggested by Pallida. You might also like the Apocolocyntosis (The Pumpkinification of Claudius). And along a different line, the poems of Catullus. - Nunh-huh 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, pumpkinification - what a word! I must remember to use "apocolocyntosis" in my imminent rewriting of Cinderella. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucian... --- AnonMoos (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You might also enjoy the plays by Plautus and Terentius and the Misopogon by Julian the Apostate - the latter is one of the most entertaining texts from antiquity I've ever read. -- Ferkelparade π 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you have another bash using the E.V.Rieu translation (available from Penguin).--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. It is very readable: gripping, even. SaundersW (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A similar question was asked on Feb 10 and archived here, with some very tempting suggestions. [10]BrainyBabe (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While not strictly Classical, but certainly a classic, I'd recommend Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. I'd also suggest 1 and 2 Samuel in the Bible - King David is perhaps the most vividly drawn character in all ancient literature. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Christopher Logue's modern take on the Illiad.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone pulls your credit report, what do they see? (For USA)

For the USA... I am submitting an application to a new landlord and they charge $15 for a "credit check". Do you have any idea what information they get back. Now if in the case they don't merely do a FICO score but a hard credit card, what do they see--do they just see my debts and payments of them or do they see things like how much income I make and all kinds of other things? William Ortiz (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk about deja vu. I got turned down when I tried to rent an apartment way back when, which confused me completely since I didn't have any credit problems. So the manager showed me my Equifax report. This was in Canada over ten years ago, but you get the idea. It listed my current and previous address, birthdate, employer, and all my credit cards, including credit limit, balance, account no. and how long I had the card. As it turned out, half the info was for someone else. He didn't charge me for the report though. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You can take a look yourself here. They try to sell you credit monitoring, but one credit report per year (without FICO score) is supposed to be free (in CO at least) so that you can make sure there's nothing that isn't supposed to be there. A credit report just lists addresses and credit accounts with credit limits and average balance. So far as payments, it will only say if you make payments or not (usually you have to be more a little late several times for them to report it). — Laura Scudder ☎ 12:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To extend the statement a little bit, one credit report per bureau per year is free for any US resident. With three bureaus, this means you can freely cross-check your credit once-yearly (if you're really concerned that something has slipped in) or freely spot-check your credit every four months. FICO scores appear to be $5-$10 extra. And yes, annualcreditreport (as linked above) is the official one, not the "free as in sign up for an entirely un-free product" one advertised relentlessly. — Lomn 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Document on American perceptions of federalism

I need a reliable document detailing how Americans currently feel about their statehood (specifically, whether they feel there is any significant difference between citizens of two different states) compared to how they felt around 1787 ASAP.Tuesday42 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex, drugs, and ethics

If I slip a woman a drug and take advantage of the state it induces to have sex with her, then that's date rape and it's immoral. But what if I ask her if she wants to try a drug, I explain what it does, she says yes and takes it, and then we have consensual sex while she (or we both) are intoxicated? Is that immoral? If we were already in a sexual relationship, then it obviously wouldn't be immoral, but what if that's not the case? Does it matter at all ethically what kind of drug it is?

Note that I'm intentionally not asking about any legal matters, and I'm not really looking for yes or no answers either. I'm looking for ethical arguments I can use to make up my own mind. 216.162.144.18 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be ethically, and probably legally, very wrong to take advantage of a person when his/her judgment is altered by drugs. Let me make an analogy. Suppose you and a friend got drunk, and he gets the notion to do something foolhardy such as swim across a river. Your duty is to stop him. It doesn't matter whether or not he got drunk voluntarily. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethically and morally, it's a grey spot. Note that consent must be given while both parties are sober, or all bets are off. If permission is explicitly given to both use the drug and have consensual sex during its effects, I would think it's ethical. However, there are problems beyond that, namely the emotional repercussions of being "taken advantage of" in such a state, and the possible consequences if the drugged partner changed their mind later and decided to press charges. Plus, there's always the chance of an adverse reaction to the drug. I'd say the risks outweigh the benefits, but it's an ethically complex situation. -- Kesh (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the types of drugs you describe is that they tend to reduce any rational control over their decision making process. Ethically this means that the consent the person gives right before the act is in question since it is unlikely they'd change their mind. Of course this depends on the type of drug that is involved. Ecstasy would be more problematic, whereas cannabis would be less so. To achieve a relative degree of confidence in the morality of the action, the best solution would be to only engage in this sort of activity with a person who you have an established relationship with thus you can be more sure of what the person would want in the situation.--droptone (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying "If we were already in a sexual relationship, then it obviously wouldn't be immoral" is not quite as clear cut as it sounds.

(a) According to some religious beliefs, it is always wrong to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. To those religions, the fact that you were already in a relationship with the person is irrelevant; every single time you have ever had or will ever have sex with a person who is not your different-sex spouse (same-sex spouses aren't recognised as spouses, except perhaps by Bishop Gene whatsisname), you're committing a sin. To them, this is a deeply immoral relationship already, and you'd be digging your spiritual grave with your penis if you continued. Clearly, you don't share their moral views, or you wouldn't be in a non-marital relationship in the first place; but this is just to demonstrate there is a bigger picture where morality is concerned, and there's no such thing as absolute morality.

Don't care. This is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for good ethical arguments, and the ethical argument here boils down to "because the Bible says so" or "because the Pope says so". 216.162.144.18 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(b) If you have doubts about the morality of what you're proposing, what difference would it make whether you're already in a relationship with her or whether she's someone you might pick up at a bar for a one-night stand. Do her rights vary depending on this? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. If she's already my girlfriend and I'm regularly having sex with her, it's a completely different situation. For example, I could give my girlfriend my Dick in a Box, but if I tried to do that to a girl who wasn't my girlfriend, it would just be disgusting and wrong. So yes, it makes a big difference. 216.162.144.18 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JackofOz. Each sexual encounter with each person must be agreed. Just because your girlfriend usually performs act X with you does not mean she wishes to perform act Y. Likewise, just because she usually does X with you when sober does not mean that she will want to when under the influence of something she has never tried before, even -- and this might be the difficult part to accept -- if she says she does while under the influence. Kesh also makes this point: consent to taking the drug, and consent to sex, must be talked through before taking the drug. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Stability: most stable country or culture, for longest time?

What culture / country can be said to have remained the most 'the same' for the longest period of time? I'm thinking of things like quality and nature of daily life of the people, type of government, etc. 70.162.25.53 (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy: HanChina. Rhinoracer (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right.. But what does 'han china' mean exactly, Han Dynasty lasted only 400 years. When did han china finish? - communism? or is it still the same??87.102.17.32 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also thinking beyond the obvious I'm sure there are many aboriginal cultures that have been unchanged (up till recently) from th very dawn of time.87.102.17.32 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, probably not. It's easy to assume that their cultures are static but there's a lot of evidence that those types of cultures change fairly rapidly too. I doubt there's any culture that is "unchanged from the very dawn of time", considering the wide variety of major climatic and ecological change that has happened over the course of human history. You simply don't have the same culture in an Ice age that you do when you are not in an ice age, and no culture has ever always been truly isolated from other cultures. Everybody trades, kills, etc. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons: license for van Gogh letters

I looked at the copyright for the van Gogh letters here. It's a Creative Commons license and it says that you are “free to make commercial use of the letters” but “If you alter, transform, or build upon the letters, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.” Wouldn’t these stipulations be mutually exclusive? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It is fairly standard for an open license to say a) you can use the product as is and b) if you change the product, you allow other people to use the changed product under the same license conditions under which you accessed the originals. The two are just not exclusive; the second prevents you seeking to impose a more restrictive license on thing which you acquired under a more relaxed license. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And aren't they public domain, anyway? Rhinoracer (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. The compilation itself can be copyrighted, and it looks as if they are annotated and have some new translations in them as well. Those can be copyrighted. The original letters and their original translations by van Gogh's sister-in-law are no longer in copyright (at least in the US). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And CC doesn't mean you can't use something commercial. Just because it is a "free" (in the sense of freedom) license doesn't mean the product has to be "free" (in the sense of libre). You could put Wikipedia on a disk and sell it—but you're selling the disk+labor, not the intellectual property, which you don't own. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith and intellectual property

What did Adam Smith think about patents and copyrights? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. He rallied against monopolies, and both patents and copyrights are monopolies of a sort. On the other hand, they do provide protections that encourage free trade and private innovation. Those two aspects of IP law have always been in tension. An article in The Economist from three years ago notes that "Adam Smith had described [patents] as necessary evils, to be handed out sparingly, and many other economists have since echoed his reservations. Patents amount to temporary monopolies on useful new inventions."[11] I'm not intimately familiar with Smith's writings so I'm not sure where one would find such a thing in his actual works, but it seems plausible. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, earl of Essex

Thanks for the answers to my previous question on Lorna Doone. I've now had a read around your articles on the Rye House Plot, something I knew nothing about. In the page on Arthur Capell, one of those arrested on discovery of the plot, it says that his suicide in prison was wrongly attributed to the Stuarts. Why was this? Was it just more Whig propaganda directed against the crown? Is it not possible that he was murdered, just to keep him silent? Myra McCartney (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Why?" and "is it possible?" questions are the purlieu of the Muse, who, having been there at the time, can sort all difficulties. SaundersW (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In spirit she descends!

This is a question, Myra that will never be answered in any conclusive fashion. One should begin, I suppose, by asking Cui bono-who benefited from Essex's death? In other words, what political purpose did it serve? Well, the evidence against the Plotters was very weak. Essex supposed suicide was taken by a good many people as a direct admission of guilt. In the trial of Lord William Russell, two of the prosecutors, Francis North and the infamous George Jeffreys, immediately argued that proved the guilt of the accused. On that basis, and on that basis alone, Russell was convicted and condemned to death.

Essex, moreover, had formerly been involved in the highest reaches of government, a royal minister and servant of the king, and thus not at all in the same class as the conspirators with whom he was associated. It is possible that a trial would have revealed dealings of the inner workings of government, which would hardly have been welcome to Charles or his brother James. It is also not entirely immaterial that Essex's servant, Paul Bromley, who served him in the Tower, and was the first to discover the earl's body, was paid £50-a huge sum at the time-after the inquest delivered a verdict of suicide.

But more than anything else the manner of Essex's death helped to discredit the Whigs, even those who had no association at all with the Rye House Plot. One has to remember the horror with which 'self-murder' was viewed at the time. But for the king's clemency, Essex's body could, by practiced custom, have been buried outwith hallowed ground, usually by a cross-road or on a highway, with a stake driven through his heart. The Whigs immediately raised questions, saying that the earl could not possibly have committed so loathsome an act, and looking for royal complicity. Pamphlets began to circulate in London saying that Essex had been murdered, and documents were intercepted accusing James of ordering the crime in person. None other than John Locke, a close associate of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the greatest of the Whigs, wrote a paper promoting the murder theory. Robert Ferguson, another Whig exile, wrote a pamphlet detailing supposed irregularities at the inquest, which was published in 1684 and smuggled into England. The government was so alarmed by this that it took the unusual step of publishing a transcript of the inquest in full.

After the Glorious Revolution in 1688 the victorious Whigs began a serious search for evidence that Essex was murdered, a quest approved by the Convention Parliament and supported by Gilbert Burnet. One Captain John Holland was arrested an accused of participating in the crime. It is likely that, in the political circumstances of the day, the verdict of the 1683 inquest would have been overturned but for the intervention of the dowager Countess of Essex, who asked that proceedings be stopped. Thus the official inquiry ended, though the speculation did not. Burnet himself began to doubt that Essex had been murdered; and when his History of My Own Times was published in 1724 he supported the suicide theory.

But, as I have said, this is a matter that will never be resolved. It still continues to divide historians, right down to the present day. Do I think he was murdered? No, I do not; but then I am no Whig! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Wow! You really seem to know what you are talking about, Clio. This is brilliant. Are you a historian? Myra McCartney (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very English kind of historian! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Greatest political leader, last century?

who do you think was the most significant political leader in the history of the past century? please give reasons for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.239 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deng Xiaoping, because he set the world's largest nation on a path to a market economy, astonishing economic growth, and geopolitical ascendancy in the following century. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler, not a nice guy, but definatly a strong leader, and achieved much, and changed much. Then there is Churchill who defeated him, so he may be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler became increasingly incompetant as WW2 progressed, which was why there was no Allied assassination attempts, as his replacement would have been a better general. 80.2.193.158 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Churchill defeated him? Whatever happened to Jugashvili? Anyway, reasonable answers above, I'd add Lenin for shaping the twentieth century much as Marco suggests Deng's influence will shape the twenty-first. Algebraist 16:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson. Although I don't really like the guy, he set the stage for American power by leading the US into WWI and playing an important role in the establishment of the League of Nations. It kind of snowballed from there, leading to America's "superpower" age. Wrad (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My own personal preference is for Mohandas Gandhi, primarily because, unlike many other revolutionaries and political leaders, he actively advocated nonviolence as a means to achieve political goals. Not that there's any "right" answer to this. Carom (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But how influential is the idea of non-violence? In today's world, how many injustices are genuinely combatted through nonviolence? Gandhiism is, in my humble opinion, nothing more than an inspirational sidenote, the majority of the world's problems are solved (or rather, tried to be solved), by RPGs and AK47s. Ninebucks (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "influence" and "significance" are synonymous. Carom (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a history expert but without the influence of Winston Churchill Britain may have taken the appeasement route with the Nazis, so that the Nazis would have taken and kept Europe, and then started firing nuclear V3s or V4s at New York, and the cruelty, nationalistic selfishness, and barbarity of fascism could have taken over the world. As Winston himself said: "What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."" 80.2.193.158 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It’s always difficult to make assessments of this kind because of all of the variables that have to be taken into consideration; but as far as I am concerned the real political giant of the twentieth century was Joseph Stalin. This does not mean to say that I like him; I do not: not by any measure. But I cannot help but admire him: I admire his ruthlessness, his intelligence, his political skill and his determination. The son of a cobbler, born of the fringes of the old Russian Empire, he outwitted time and again those better placed than him within his own party, not excluding Lenin. Rising to the top, he industrialized his country in a way that surely saved it when the great test came in 1941. He defeated Hitler-and, yes, it was the Soviet Army that bore the brunt of the fighting against the Germans and several of their allies- going on to outplay Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman. He stands across the twentieth century like a true colossus. He may not have been a good man; but he was a great one. Are the great, I have to ask myself, ever good? Clio the Muse (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My vote goes for Stalin too. I agree with all your points but would also add that he perfected the cult of the personality. Surely that's highly influential politics-wise. AllenHansen (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"It's far too soon to tell." The apocryphal answer given by a Chinese statesman when asked his opinion of the French Revolution. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change my vote to "the guy behind the scenes who has the real power but isn't visible to the public". I've always wondered who that was... Wrad (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Then that must be the smoking man. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Military Covenant

Trying to expand the article Military Covenant and can find little or no historical references to it. In recent times it has come under fire in the UK and I think the article needs to look at why it was introduced etc Boooooom (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy: who are the six greatest philosophers?

Who are the Six greatest philosophers of the world ? 122.163.241.169 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to define "great" to start us off? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Though this question obviously has no objective answer, I think it would be safe to say that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes would be in as many or more such "greatest" lists as anyone. --Allen (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we add Hume for good measure? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why only six? --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dōgen, Thomas Aquinas, Germaine Greer, Leonard Cohen, Yamamoto Tsunetomo and Lu-Tze. Because. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mencius Kant Hegel I leave it to the reader to add two more prussians and a frenchman of their choice.87.102.17.32 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC had a competition & poll a few years ago, which was won by Karl Marx, before David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato and Immanuel Kant. Of course it's hard to take this type of thing seriously, especially if Spinoza doesn't win. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why six when you only need one? Schopenhauer --S.dedalus (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right about needing just one, S.dedalus, but surely the name is Lu-Tze! ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hume could outconsume Hegel. Historical fact. Kant was very rarely stable, whilst Wittgenstein was classified by some as a beery swine. Socrates was permamnently pissed. Hobbes was fond of his dram. Dare we mention John Stuart Mill and his free will? AllenHansen (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain more about this hume vs. hegel eating competition, I find it difficult that hegel could be out-eaten without you providing a solid documentation.87.102.17.32 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Drinking, not eating. FiggyBee (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity that as a moral philosopher P. G. Wodehouse is often overlooked. Xn4 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who do not know the words of Bruce's Phlosophers Song here they are:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume

Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine

Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya

'Bout the raising of the wrist.

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,

On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--

Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.

Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.

I drink, therefore I am.

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,

A lovely little thinker.

All sing along now! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But a bugger when he's pissed! FiggyBee (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh! I forgot that because I'm pissed just at the moment! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What a great song. Is it falsifiable? Are any of these philosophers known to have not been drinkers? --Allen (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Socrates, at least, was a drinker and a bugger! Adam Bishop 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

It was "Schopenhauer and Hegel" in its original form, that presented to the world by Monty of Python fame. Has anyone mentioned Woody Allen yet? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we confine our answers to 'philosophers',,, otherwise I must nominate park bench wino man as the greatest philosopher of all time, when he's concious his insights are remarkable, assuming he isn't too busy fighting invisible foes.87.102.8.240 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about religious philosophers? Moses, for example, has had a greater influence than Xeno. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to propose a definition of "philosopher" ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone whose thoughts/ideas/concepts have value in themselves, and are presented in a direct manner. I'd probably confine 'direct manner' to spoken or written ideas etc. As such ideas etc presented in the form of a song, or play would not be considered philsophy (as such) even though it may be of great interest or relevence. This would be a very traditional view I'd guess.87.102.8.240 (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who gets to decide whether they have value? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's up to you of course!87.102.8.240 (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you were to ask me to name three geniuses, I probably wouldn't say Einstein, Newton... ... you know ... I'd go Milligan, Cleese, Everett, Sessions!" ---Sluzzelin talk 11:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should plays be an inferior form of literature ? Do Tom Stoppard's plays, which deal with some quite profund philosophical issues, somehow have less "value" as philosophy than the novels of Phillip Pullman, C. S. Lewis or Samuel Butler ?

I didn't actually say they were.. But you raise an interesting question .. if you remember it was asked "Would anyone like to propose a definition of philosopher" - so I ask in the case of a play - who is the philosopher - is it the writer, or the audience, or both?87.102.94.198 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please just supply a better definition of philospher than the one I gave, I don't enjoy having holes torn in me, and would be interested in a better definition - which I'm absolutely sure exists.87.102.94.198 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind that philosophers define what a philosopher is, so it's never going to be a nice easy answer we can all agree on. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the greatest philosophers are those whose work is of the highest standard then I would suggest that all six of the best are recent philosophers. Philosophy is getting better and more advanced as time passes. This is partly because new philosophers 'stand on the shoulders' of those who have gone before, and modern advances could not have been made were it not for the monumental creativity of previous thinkers. Nevertheless, there is more truth to be found in the writings of David Lewis and Saul Kripke, for example, than in anything written before 1950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.174.220 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm highly suspicious that philosophy is a progressive discipline. In any case, there's a lot more to any discipline than up-and-onwards "progress". Which any philosopher of science in particular would know! --98.217.18.109 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

John Norman and his Chronicles of Gor series! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Congressmen in WW II

Some sitting Senators and Congressmen, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., left Congress to serve in WW II. How many, if any, were killed in action? DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm only aware of one, Vincent F. Harrington, U.S. Representative from Iowa 9th District from 1937 to 1942, who died during military service in England on November 29, 1943. But also two former congressmen, Joseph Weldon Bailey, Jr. (d. 1943), who had been a U.S. Representative from Texas at-large, 1933-1935, served in the U.S. Marine Corps died of pneumonia following injuries in a road accident; and Harold C. McGugin, U.S. Representative from Kansas 3rd District, 1931-1935, served in the U.S. Army and "contracted an incurable disease" and died while arguably on active service in France but after the end of the War, in 1946. Also two other US politicians of some kind: Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention from Massachusetts in 1940 and served in the U.S. Navy. He was killed when his Liberator bomber exploded in England in 1944; and Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., Governor of Puerto Rico from 1929 to 1932, was a general in the U.S. Army and took part in the D-Day landings on June 6, 1944, he died in France a month later of exhaustion and heart failure. Xn4 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Isn't Bartholomew Sharp getting credit?

Mm'kay. So a history lover here, and a pirate lover. Infact, descendant of a pirate.

On the Henry Morgan page it talks about Pirates of the Caribbean a little. Infact it says "The pirate code from the movie trilogy Pirates of the Caribbean was said to be created by the pirates Morgan and Bartholomew. "Morgan" clearly refers to Henry Morgan. However, Morgan's actual articles as reported by Exquemelin bear not the slightest resemblance to this code. Furthermore, Barthlomew Roberts (the only person to whom 'Bartholomew' could refer) was only born 6 years before Morgan died. "

This is false information. Bartholomew Roberts isn't the only person it could refer to. Infact, it's not who it refers to at all. It's actually talking about Bartholomew Sharp He was a Pirate, more similar to age of Captain Morgan than Roberts, and also died around more similar times. And him being my ancestor, I do know for a fact he sailed for a little bit with Captain Morgan. So really my question is, why is Bartholomew Roberts getting the credit for being mentioned in this film instead of Sharp?

--Nutsrabbitsandmonkeys (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The sentence is an uncited assertion, added by someone or other, and to my eye contains speculation. Your thesis seems to fit the bill better. It would be handy if we could find a reference for the whole thing, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh - and kudos on your excellent superior pirate bragging rights. V. envious :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SS UNITED STATES Ocean Liner

I share with you of a seemingly little known fact about the SS UNITED STATES which I am attempting to confirm.

Some time when I lived in Philadelphia, Anchorman Jim O'Brien of Channel six Action News did a report on the SS UNITED STATES; that this ship was to be a hospital ship for the United States Navy. I can recall seeing the model of the ship encased in clear plastic in her hospital markings. She was to be named the USS UNITED STATES for the United States Navy, but the plan obviously never materialized. Besides my memory of the event I have enquired about the event and report from the TV station and the SS UNITED STATES Foundation. So far neither have responded to my request.

My compliments and continued success.

Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr. USS UNITED STATES Foundation (frigate) email removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.3.74 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with SS United States? A later ship, perhaps? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, that was certainly the SS United States. She was designed to be usable as a hospital ship or a troop ship. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then she would have been named the USNS United States. A civillian ship transferred to the Navy for work with the Military Sealift Command becomes a USNS, since it isn't commissioned as part of the Navy and is operated by civillian crews. Leobold1 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

London the socialist: was Jack London a socialist?

Ive been reading People of the Abyss and find some of it quite puzzling. Was Jack London a socialist or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack London#Political Views. From the very first line: London joined the Socialist Labor Party in April 1896. -- Kesh (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See also his essay Revolution (1905), online here. Xn4 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are talking about late-19th/early-20th century socialism here. Check your Stalinism at the door. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I can understand your bafflement here. London's socialism was shot through with elements of his racial theory, which do not make comfortable reading for a modern audience. He could express sympathy for the impoverished, on the one hand, while describing those in poverty as 'subhuman' or 'bestial', on the other. He frequently refers to London's East Enders as a 'new race', a symptom of the deterioration of society-"They remind me of gorillas...They are a new species, a breed of city savages...The slum is their jungle, and they live and prey in the jungle." In some ways London's argument is the very antithesis of that of Marx and others of his kin, for whom industrialisation and urbanisation was a necessary stage on the road to socialism. In contrast London is almost reactionary in the doubts he raises over industrial capitalism, which destroys the best human stock; it destroys the family; and it destroys "all the sacredness of motherhood." It's a form of socialism, I suppose, but one that is seen through the prism of eugenics. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

London was widely read in Soviet times. Held up as an example of world-wide socialist talent. AllenHansen (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

March 13

Media violating copyright?

See Ashley_Alexandra_Dupre#Ashley_DiPietro for background. How can media like [12] use pictures from her myspace site? Isn't this a violation of her copyright on those photos? Sancho 04:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is, the Associated Press is taking credit for the pic. Some people just go with "it's not a copyright violation if the owner doesn't complain." --Nricardo (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not necessarily saying they own the copyright. They're just indicating that they took it from the MySpace page, not, say, Google News. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some instances when you can use copyrighted media without violating copyright; see fair use. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but I was wondering if there are any previous cases that cover this type of situation where a ruling was actually made as to whether or not this type of use has in the past been fair use. Sancho 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure of it. It is not uncommon in the least. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use is essentially the right to hire a lawyer. As personal photos generally don't get registered at the copyright office, your recompense is limited to a pittance that's not really worth going after. So, to sum up: no, it's not legal, and it probably doesn't fall under fair use, but they'll damn well do what they like. grendel|khan 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gwine to ride up in the chariot (early in the morning)

Does anyone know where i can get maybe a midi of this song? Or maybe a score sheet? Just wondering, i cant seem to find it anywhere! maybe it goes by other names? I just cant find alot of info.

by the way, to make sure its the right song here, one line of the lyrics that seems to assure its not confused with some other song is "Oh Lord, have mercy on me! (x3)"

The only reference i could actually find of a sound clip of any sort is here: http://www.amazon.com/Mosaic-Collection-African-American-Spirituals-Guitar/dp/B0006A9FUU

Thanks.

137.81.112.178 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness

Would it be true to say that Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness was a reflection of a more general disquiet at the time of its publication over the effects of colonialism in Africa? Topseyturvey (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be said yes, see Heart_of_darkness#Historical_context87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE at Heart_of_darkness#Historical_context it says "This caused a rise in atrocities perpetrated by the Belgian traders similar if not identical to those perpetrated by the fictional Kurtz." - what atrocities were commited by kurtz?87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you really should read the book to find out. Suffice it to say that Kurtz is associated with human heads on posts surrounding his bungalow in the same way the agents of King Leopold II are associated with baskets of severed hands. Our article on Leopold II will give you some idea of his atrocities, though a fairly muted one. - Nunh-huh 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read it quite a few times, but a while ago. Didn't rememeber any human heads, ok found an e-book you are indeed right. Also kurtz is said to have 'ruined the whole district' .. 'his methods' etc Thanks, just a bit rusty.87.102.94.198 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the novel did reflect widespread questioning of European colonialism of Africa. The touchstone case is that of King Leopold II, as mentioned above, and his private fiefdom, the Congo Free State. This is beautifully, shockingly, clearly documented in Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost -- if only all histories could be so absorbingly written! From the Leopold article, some of which I wrote (caveat lector):

Estimates of the death toll (in the millions), outrageous exploitation and widespread human rights abuses (including the lopping off of hands) led to an international protest movement in the early 1900s. The campaign to report on Leopold's "secret society of murderers," led by British diplomat Roger Casement, and former shipping clerk E. D. Morel, became the first mass human rights movement. Supporters included American humorist Mark Twain, who wrote a stinging political satire entitled King Leopold's Soliloquy, in which the King supposedly argues that bringing Christianity to the country outweighs a little starvation. Leopold's rubber gatherers were tortured, maimed and slaughtered until the turn of the century, when the conscience of the Western world forced Brussels to call a halt.

You could say this had some influence on the public mood into which Heart of Darkness was published. The above links should help you find out more. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Topseyturvey, your question is aimed at the more general picture, going beyond the specific example of the Congo Free State. Read in this context Heart of Darkness reflects a new awareness that all was not well with the European 'civilizing' mission in Africa; that imperial expansion had become a cover for a venture which increasingly subverted local life.

It was in consequence of this that the African Society was founded in 1900, in memory of the writer and ethnographer, Mary Kingsley, dedicated to building up respect for African customs and changing European understanding about Africa and the Africans. The West African Mail was launched in 1903 by E D Morel-yes, him again!-, with the aim of supplying 'reliable and impartial intelligence' on West African issues. More and more journalists and writers began to condemn what was happening in Africa, not just in the Congo, but elsewhere, particularly South-West Africa, where the Germans were carrying out the the first genocide of the twentieth century. Another British journalist, H W Nevinson, investigated slavery in Portuguese West Africa, publishing his findings in 1906 as A Modern Slavery.

To add to Conrad's fictional treatment of the horrors of colonial exploitation, Mark Twain wrote King Leopold's Soliloquy, and Arthur Conan Doyle The Crime of the Congo. In Red Rubber, published in 1906, Morel made it clear that the worst of Leopold's atrocities had been a consequence of the rising world demand for rubber for the growing automobile industry. It is no coincidence, perhaps, that the first Model T came of the Ford assembly line in the same year. In 1909, in an attempt to strengthen the front against the abuses in Africa, the Anti-Slavery Society united with the Aborigines Protection Society to form a single Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society. This investigated abuses not just in Africa but all over the world, including the Putumayo atrocities in South America.

Heart of Darkness came at just the right moment in history. But in the end, when Marlow returns to Brussels to report Kurtz's death to his fiancé, he hides the truth under a comforting fiction. Some realities are just too hard to bear. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Marlow lies to Kurtz's Intended in Brussels, and suffers for it, but he continues to tell others about the actual horrors as a kind of warning, which is how the narrator hears about them, and we read about them. I'd like to think that Conrad was demonstrating something he had observed: the tendency of those aware of distant atrocities to deny them - and that though Marlow is in many ways the author's alter ego, in this respect the narrator is the author's stand-in. - Nunh-huh 03:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your answers. The second last was particularly good. Topseyturvey (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. Maybe you'd like to tell the rest of us since when you've had the right to make moral judgements on other peoples questions? [13] [14] ? Do you wish to know if the questions you ask are in my opinion "ugly"?87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Black soldiers: German propaganda campaign, 1920s

Was there a racist background to the German propaganda campaign agaionst black colonial soldiers in the Rhineland in the 1920s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topseyturvey (talk • contribs) 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - for example search for 'rhineland bastard'87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure at all that there was a "German propaganda campaign agaionst black colonial soldiers in the Rhineland in the 1920s" specifically at that time - more a case of " black colonial soldiers in the Rhineland in the 1920s provided fuel for any propagandist..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.8.240 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In Mein Kampf, Hitler talks about african soldiers brought into the rhineland by belguim as neutral people to keep the treaties in place. AH says that they must be exterminated forthwith, to paraphrase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doubting Hitler's intent to do just that, but I was under the impression that he never really mentioned anything as extreme as mass murder and genocide in Mein Kampf. i'd always thought it laid out his beliefs in Aryan superiority etc but never really mentioned what he'd do to non-Aryans, beyond declaring that they were not German. I could easily be wrong. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest, guys, that you look into these issues in just a tiny bit more depth before making statements of this kind. Hitler neither called for the extermination of Africans in Mein Kampf nor implemented such a policy when in power. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Topseyturvey, there was a racist background to the propaganda campaign against the colonial soldiers in the Rhineland, known at the time as the Schwarze Schande-Black Shame. However, it goes well beyond this specific example, reflecting a more general hostility to the involvement of black people in white affairs. In 1920, after the French decided to use Senegalese and Moroccan units in the occupation of the Rhineland, E D Morel, a leading English radical journalist, complained in The Nation, a left-wing weekly, about those "who thrust barbarians-barbarians belonging to a race inspired by nature...with tremendous sexual instincts-into the heart of Europe." This is all the more ironic because Morel had campaigned against colonial exploitation, being involved with Roger Casement in the Congo Reform Association.

When some Moroccan soldiers shot dead four German demonstrators in Frankfurt in April 1920 the outrage in the press, both German and international, reached an ever more intense pitch. Stories began to circulate that ‘coal black primitive African barbarians were roaming out of control.’ A lot of these reflected the usual sexual anxiety with which some whites perceive black people. Morel, encouraged by the response to his piece in The Nation, went on to publish a brochure he called The Black Horror on the Rhine. This, and many others in the same vein, played on the usual sexually-based stereotypes. Black people, after all, could simply not control their lusts; they were nearer to 'animals that the average white man', as The Liverpool Courier declared the previous year.

The expression Schwarze Schande actually comes from a medal designed by Karl Goetz and issued by the Bavarian mint in 1920, which showed, on one side, a black phallus wearing a helmet to which a naked German woman was tied, and a caricature of an African soldier, on the other. There were mass meetings in several cities in which Ray Beveridge, a granddaughter of a former governor of Illinois, now married to a German, called for the lynching of 'black savages.' The right-wing press, of course, made the most of this hysteria, but it also extended to those on the left, with Friedrich Ebert, then President of the republic, calling the presence of black Africans in Germany "a provocative offense against the laws of civilization." The offensive went international, involving the League of Nations, Pope and several women's organizations, all calling for the removal of the colonial troops.

In actual fact there were never more than 5000 colonial soldiers in the French occupation force, and they were withdrawn as early as June 1920. In all this time there was only one accusation of rape, subsequently withdrawn. French propaganda countered the Schwarze Schande offensive with their own on 'White Shame', a comment on the seduction of their soldiers by the local women! The German hostility to the Africans is really quite ironic when one considers that after all their European forces stopped fighting following the armistice in 1918 the struggle was still carried on for some weeks by askaris in East African, under the command of Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me congratulate you on your obvious erudition. A very good answer indeed, better than I ever expected. Topseyturvey (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. Maybe you'd like to tell the rest of us since when you've had the right to make moral judgements on other peoples questions? [15] [16] ?87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's street address in Somerville, Mass.

Isaac Asimov apparently lived in Somerville, Massachusetts during 1949-1951. What was his street address? Thanks. Rumpuscat (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this [17], he wrote from 762 Broadway, Somerville 44, Mass. and it fits the dates that this [18] says he lived there during. Hope that helps. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

excellent, thanks. Rumpuscat (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

HISTORY: compulsory in school systems in how many countries?

196.10.121.2 (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)HOW MANY COUNTRIES IS HISTORY COMPULSURY IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM

I would be very surprised to find if there was any country, anywhere, where some form of "history" is not taught, specifically national history. What defines "history" and from what perspective it is taught would be the elements that vary, I suspect. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's always the countries that don't have compulsory education at all. I can't find a list, but it must include those countries with no effective government, such as Somalia. Algebraist 17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Charities combating racism

hi, does anyone know any organisations or charities which target racism, either specifically or in general? The Updater would like to talk to you! 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spread of religions

Why are some religions so successful at spreading and replacing an existing one? I'm thinking mostly of Christianity in Europe; it built up slowly and then exploded. Why was this? Why were they able to convince people originally to choose Christianity over another religion? How was it able to so (relatively) quickly overtake the Roman pantheon? 81.96.160.6 (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no doubt specific reasons, but an easy unspecific one is simply power. When a religion is adopted by a rich or ruling class, or by a rich conquering people, it adds a lot of incentive, both explicit and implicit, for those underneath to convert. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd though of that but I couldn't understand how they converted the powerful in the first place. I can't see any incenives for converting to what was originally an illegal fringe religion. The people in power across the Roman Empire already controlled a powerful religion, so why convert? Or why not attempt to absorb christianity ino the Roman tradition? Make him the son of Jupiter, for example. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for over 250 years Christianity was pretty much the religion of the powerless in the Roman Empire -- slaves, urban lower classes, etc. It was only AFTER Christianity had converted a significant fraction of the population of the empire, despite not having received any government support (and in fact in the face of periodic persecutions on the part of the Imperial government) that Constantine turned to Christianity. AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also by that time Christianity had begun adopting many pagan beliefs and practices which made the religion more acceptable to people in Europe. Wrad (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It mainly did so after 313-325 A.D., however. During the period between the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Nicea (over 250 years), Christianity converted a significant fraction of the population of the Roman Empire (sometimes estimated to be as much as 1/4) almost entirely "climbing uphill" (i.e. without significant external support, and often in the face of strong external disapprval). AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all the questioner seems to a bit ignorant about ancient religions and cults in the classical and late antiquity. There wasn't a single Roman religion, there were several religions/cults some related to others and sharing a common mythology while others didn't.

As the Roman empire expanded the conquered were largely allowed to worship their gods as they had done previously. Their gods were many times imported into Rome. The ancient Romans were by modern standards were very tolerant and highly superstitious and tried to bribe the local gods to be on the Roman side, local gods were therefore easily adopted and worshipped. The common attitude seems to have been: "we have so many gods that there is always room for one more". However, there were some cases (Celtic druids and Carthaginian gods - however there is a chance that this was also Roman slander against their enemies) were this wasn't allowed: a religion which required regular human sacrifice was despised and forbidden. As this happened the priests of such cults would obviously preach against Roman rule and the end-result was the destruction of such a religion/cult.

However, some exotic oriental cults were regarded with suspicion by the Roman establishment; some of which were accused of being against Roman family values (in other words: it was suspected that the average "weak minded" Roman woman would be seduced and would turn into a slut if she became a member of such a cult - "weak-minded woman" was a fact of nature as far as far the ancient Romans were concerned). From time to time (in the wake of a major scandal or something similar) such cults would be locally prosecuted (normally only inside Rome and Italy). But by the large and as long as they kept a low profile such Mystery cults were also left in peace. Some of these cults were even useful and quite popular: the cult of Mithras, an all-male warrior cult, was very popular in the legions.

The overwhelming majority of the people in the Mediterranean area were polytheists. While usually they worshipped their local gods of which they were more familiar with, they readily accepted that the gods of other people were also real. E.g.: an ancient Roman would usually not worship and sacrifice to any Egyptian god, unless he was in Egypt, but he would accept that the Egyptian gods existed. Some ancient academics also pointed out the similar attributes/roles between many gods (Jupiter = Zeus = Wotan) and some even defended that the same gods only had different names in different countries. The major point was that such polytheist believers had no big problem of showing respect and making a sacrifice to the Roman gods and to the divine emperors from time to time as a sign of their loyalty. See: Imperial cult (ancient Rome)

All except one strange and curious religion in the Near East: Judaism. This strange religion preached that there was only one true god, which was theirs alone, and that all the other gods were evil fabrications. Their god had no face - most of the other gods had faces which one could see in statues and could sacrifice and relate to - a god with no face? Weird and strange. They had strange rules about their food and they practiced circumcision (something which did not appeal to Roman and Greek sensibilities). They were accused of being atheists (hey, they denied the existence of all the other gods). Adding to these facts they also refused to show the proper respect towards the Roman gods or even worse, to the divine emperor. There was an incident where Emperor Caligula declared himself a god and ordered his statues to be set up in temples throughout the Empire. The Jews refused, and began preparations for armed revolt- it was only avoided in extremis by the local Roman governor. The region was a hive of weird prophets and messiahs and small rebellions, which from time to time even turned into major ones. However they kept a low profile because they didn't try to convert none to their strange religion. This religion of the god of the Jews was surely not a Roman-friendly religion or intended for Romans at all.

Then something strange happened: new Jewish cults appeared which separated itself from the ancient Jewish religion. They had some differences among them, but almost all of them spoke about single person, the son of the god of the Jews. All these cults claimed to be Christians, and they preached to and tried to convert all classes and nations.

At the same time Roman rule in Iudea was threatened by a major First Jewish-Roman War. The new cults claimed that they had nothing to do with it: They were Christians, not Jews. The Romans concerned themselves more with the rebellious Jews. They might even leave the Christians in peace to divide the Jewish population as far as possible

Most of the Christian cults weren't limited by absurd rules of food or sex of the worshipers (not even speaking about circumcision). They preached to men, women, and even slaves. It was largely a family oriented religion, all members of the family were invited. Many of the other oriental cults were uni-sex organizations (the cult of Mithra was intended only for men, and mainly warriors, many of the female cults were just intended for women). This approach appealed to some classes and sub-groups but not to the vast majority as the rival Christian approach did. The new Christian cults copied many aspects of other cults appealing to (almost) everybody at the same time. Still the Christian cults kept the reputation and aura of being mystery cults.

They refused to sacrifice to the divine emperor and to other gods but they were largely peaceful to Rome: they were always clobbering each other, and the Jews, but didn't revolt against the Roman state. This religion was indeed different: most cults and religions promised earthly rewards. You want something/or have a problem? You go to a temple and make a proper sacrifice and you will get your reward/or the solution of your problem. It was in many ways a business transactions. This religion spoke of a heavenly reward. Many Christian cults adopted Roman attitudes: women are morally weak and guilty of the original sin. Poncius Pilate was deceived by the Jews. ETC. At the same time many Christians refused to reject their religion no matter the punishment. They rather burned to death than repent - something which would spark the interest of many disaffected persons. You know these persons who are always looking for a spiritual message for their lives. Christianity was new and different, it was gaining popularity, it was appealing to men, women and to the youth. It was considered a danger to Rome by some emperors.

And as their numbers increased they became an asset in the political power struggles (civil wars). Some Roman emperors prosecuted this religion. However by doing this they also ensured that their political opponents would protect or at least be passive towards this religion. If the emperor was overthrown in a coup the new emperor would many times change certain policies to gain popularity as he wanted to show that he was different. Constantine might have been a Christian, but he wanted the Imperial throne first. He realized that if he protected the Christians he would gain the support of many, including many inside the territories of his adversaries. So he did, and the rest is history. Flamarande (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC) PS:This is largely OR (my knowledge and opinion is based on book I read and documentaries I watch) - I particularly recommend "The rivals of Jesus" a BBC documentary which shows many other cults and how they influenced Christianity. If you want to believe that Christianity is exactly the same since the time of the gospels and wasn't influenced by other religions fine by me. However I must point out that the image of the holy Mary holding baby Jesus is uncannily similar to images of Isis holding Horus, etc. I strongly suspect that Clio is going to answer the original question in a much better fashion.

Grossly simplified: In the time of widespread polytheism this new religion, Christianity, had one enormous appeal:

• There is but one God. He is omnipotent and He demands your subservience.

This sounds like the stuff any politician, then or now, would diligently copy into their manifestos.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Those who have seen this thread as merely a convenient opportunity to snidely take a passing whack at Christianity have done little but expose their own ignorance of conditions in the Roman empire in the first three centuries A.D. Christianity most definitely did not invent monotheism -- Judaism came first, and various abstract theoretical forms of quasi-monotheism was taught by some ancient Greek and Roman philosophers (such philosophical quasi-monotheism being compatible with practical participation in the rituals of emperor-worship, of course). Nor did Christians invent "Deus vult". The truth was that many members of the educated upper classes in the Roman empire had lost respect for the old mythological/ritual polytheism, and turned towards either oriental mystery religions (Cybele, Isis, Mithraism), abstract philosophical systems (Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc.), or astrology. And as I already stated above, Christianity conspicuously attracted much more support among the lower classes than among the Roman political classes in its first 250 years... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For some people in some places, like academics in the Greek half of the empire, monotheism wasn't so new - even Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and other philosophers recognized that a multitude of idiosyncratic gods was silly, and there was probably just one god encompassing all aspects of the others. There was apparently a monument "to the unknown god" in Athens, which Paul (I think?) used as proof of the Christian god. So for some people at least, Christianity wasn't too great of an intellectual leap. (But there were still pagans in the east until at least the 6th century, when Plato's Academy was closed, and in the 4th, one emperor, Julian the Apostate, tried to undo the Christianization of the Empire.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's Will and Representation

I hope to begin a reading of this book shortly. Does the author assume any form of prior knowledge of his style of argument and thinking: does he give any indication what other texts would aid in the forward journey?217.42.105.41 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer himself gives some guidance here in the preface to the first edition of The World as Will and Representation. He says that it is quite impossible to understand his great work without first having read On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, his doctoral dissertation. Beyond that he assumes a good knowledge of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and a passing acquaintance with Plato. He also suggests that some familiarity with the Vedas, particularly the Upanishads, would be useful. I would say that, as far as Kant is concerned, unless you have already read the Critique of Pure Reason, it might be best to have a look at a good general introduction to his work. The Critique may be important as a work of original thought, but the prose is positively leaden! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Understanding the failure of monetary policy in Japan

Can anyone point me to sources addressing the failure of monetary policy to overcome deflation in Japan since the 1990s? I am looking in particular for a description of fiscal and monetary measures taken in Japan and an analysis of why they largely failed to help me understand the prospects for the Federal Reserve in its current efforts to prevent deflation in the United States (and globally). Thanks in advance for any tips. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Krugman wrote a lot about Japan and the liquidity trap at the time, here are some articles: [19]. Another economist who spent a lot of time studying Japan's problems was... Ben Bernanke (See for example: [20]) David Šenek (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

history of tanzania

please i want to how Seyyid said became the sultan of oman and his rulership.Thank you17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)82.206.239.148 (talk)gabriel

Said bin Sultan, Sultan of Muscat and Oman doesn't have much, but at least says how he became sultan. Algebraist 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Government spending

Does anyone know where I can get a list of countries with their government spending as a percent of the GDP, or even in absolute value? Thank you ahead of time 99.226.39.245 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook has figures for government expenditure and for GDP, so you could make a list from their data. They haven't done this themselves, alas (why make a database that isn't sortable by all numerical fields?). Algebraist 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Greatest English king

Who is the greatest king in English history?86.151.241.101 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A very easy question. Alfred the Great was the only great king in English history. If you mean fattest, maybe Henry VIII of England.4.234.24.7 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Canute the Great? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England presided over England's rise from an island off in the corner of Europe to a major respected European power, and she didn't do it the way that earlier English kings had done -- i.e. seeking military glory by tramping around France fighting semi-pointless battles of personal ambition that didn't really lead anywhere in the end -- but instead laid some fairly solid foundations for England's future greatness over the next two centuries or so. Considering the constraints Elizabeth worked under (limitations of resources available, tremendous external pressures, etc.), and the fact that she would only have had to commit a relatively few mistakes for her rule to come crashing down -- in which case Protestantism might have been doomed in Europe, and history could have turned out very differently -- I think that she has a real claim to being considered great. AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Though her claim to be a king is less clear. Algebraist 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm" -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to swim against the tide and propose John of England. The fact that he held the country together as his big brother was playing Christian hero/Crusader instead of doing his duty of ruling his kingdom and people speaks for itself. The English barons forced John to sign the Magna Carta which created/reinforced a English proto-parliament. Besides being a corner-stone of modern liberty, the system of parliament is one the most successful political creations ever (most countries have some kind of parliament - or senate or council, whatever). Winston Churchill summarized the legacy of John's reign: "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns". Another strong candidate is Oliver Cromwell who while technically not being a king, showed to all kings in Europe that there was a limit to their powers. He and his supporters had the plain courage to publicly execute a king who had been found guilty of treason showing to everybody that not even a king was above the law. Before that it was considered that a king was above the law and that in fact the king was the law. The whole issue was and is far more complicated than that but they created the ultimate example. Flamarande (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is this "John of England" stuff? He is always called King John by historians. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCNT -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and your beloved WP:NCNT completely contradicts the principle of "use the most common name in English". Nobody, but nobody, calls him "John of England". Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that I "loved" it; I merely pointed out the policy which determined the name that you objected to. If you want to complain about this in any non-ineffectual way, the place to do so is at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles), not here... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Flamarande, I am not going to challenge your choice, though I think it would have been better if the question was about the most significant king in English history. I certainly consider John important-as I made clear not so long ago; but he can hardly be described as a great king: not by any measure. Nevertheless, it is an interesting response to the question. There are just one or two points of fact that I would take issue with. I am not at all sure what you mean in saying that John 'held the country together' in Richard's absence. He had, in fact, promised not to enter England, only to break this to head the opposition to William Longchamp, Richard's justiciar. John was thus effectively in a state of rebellion. I think, moreover, your statement about Richard is based on a misapprehension about the nature of Medieval kingship. For one thing Richard had charge of an Empire, of which England was not necessarily the most important part. For another there were all sorts of expectations about kings at the time: they were the font of justice, yes, but they were also expected to bring glory in war.

As far as King Charles is concerned I am not at all sure what the nature of his 'treason' was and by what right he was put on trial, other than by force of arms and on the authority of a purged and unrepresentative Parliament. But let that slide. Oliver Cromwell may very well have shown all the kings of Europe that there was 'a limit to their power', though I'm not aware that any were mindful of the lesson. It's a pity, though, that he did not seem to appreciate that there were limits to his own power, far greater, in the end, than those of the king he and his colleagues murdered. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

John's reign, however you want to call him, was a disaster for the crown. He was a dreadful ruler. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

86.151, for me the only candidate here is Edward III, who hs ever right to be considered as the ‘greatest of kings’ for reasons I gave below in answer to a previous question. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the most common perception of Edward's reign is one that brought England success in war, from the Halidon Hill and Neville's Cross against Scotland, to the even greater victories against France at Crecy and Poitiers. In 1356 England had two enemy kings in captivity: David II of Scotland and John II of France. In some ways the country had reached the high point in its Medieval history. But success in war brought two more innovations: the enhanced role of ordinary people in attaining military success, and the rise of Parliament as a unique English political institution.

Before Edward England had continued to rely on the feudal levy for its military arm, which meant, in essence, dependency of the great feudal nobility and the armed knight. But Edward's wars saw the recruitment of professional armies, where the decisive arm was not the knight but the plebeian archer. It was through Edward's wars that the ordinary people of England (and Wales!) acquired a direct interest in the course and the outcome of the nation's foreign adventures, which did much to forge a common sense of nationhood, distinctly lacking at earlier periods. Even more important, the wars demanded money, and money meant Parliamentary grants, and Parliamentary grants meant detailed scrutiny of expenditure, as well as the granting of petitions. By the end of Edward's reign the Commons were able not only to introduce legislation, but also to hold officials to account. His successor, Richard II was to discover just how assertive Parliament could be.

It was Edward who raised England from the nadir of the reign of his father, and created a sense of common identity and purpose. More than that, it was his patronage that turned St. George into a national saint, and he was the first king to give first place to the English language, as opposed to the Norman-French favoured by his predecessors. Not only did he use English himself in everyday discourse, but also in 1362 he passed legislation recognising English as 'the tongue of the nation.' Where he led the great nobility followed. So, the answer has to be, yes: Edward has every justified right to be considered as the father of the English nation. Clio the Muse 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that his last years were a terrible decline. I also disagree with the point someone made that Elizabeth did not tramp around Europe in pointless military campaigns: well, not personally, but her armies did in the 1590s. So I am going to go for Edward the Elder, whose method of defeating the Vikings through advancing, fortified increments was brilliant and had a lasting effect on the country. qp10qp (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth's continental military interventions (other than the "singeing of the King of Spain's beard") were almost exclusively aimed at preventing the economic powerhouse of Europe (the Netherlands) from falling under the complete domination of England's deadliest enemy (Spain). Elizabeth didn't have the resources to go militarily adventuring for personal glory like the English kings of the Hundred Years' War, but she was able to achieve a foreign policy success by defending England's political and economic interests in a vital area. AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But look at her dismal military interventions in France in support of Henry IV in the 1590s. Also her earlier failed attempt to win back Calais by occupying Le Havre. qp10qp (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

german guns of ww2

Greetings. The vast majority of light weapons used by german military forces in ww2 had the individual main components metal stamped displaying origin of manufacture, year of manufacture, etc. I have seen some rifles and light machine-guns with a stamp on the barrel, on the stock and just above the trigger guard on the same weapon. What was the purpose of this identification process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.111 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ok I don't really know but there is at least one possibility - if the different parts of the gun were made by different manufacturers/factories and assembled from parts of different origin then each part would have it's own origin stamp - plus in the case of a bad part it would be possible to trace its origin - just a guess - where the stamps all from the same factory?83.100.138.116 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that when a part of your gun is broken you must be sure that the replacement is correct one. There are several models and issues, each different in small details. To order the correct one from the depot (which is far away and can't see and compare the broken one) you must know the correct serial number. I believe that this system of identifying still applies today. Flamarande (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Political Correctness

I've looked at the article, but can't really come up with a good definition of political correctness for a debate I'm doing tomorrow. I'm proposing that political correctness encourages racism, but I can't figure out a snappy definition to start with. The internet seems to yield only general things about not using certain language; can anyone here help?

Thank you, Daniel (‽) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness is merely language (or any media) that is altered with the purpose of producing the least amount of offense towards any minority group that could possibly be offended. It is easy to argue that it is demeaning. It implies that certain minority groups of people are inherently so weak that they must be protected by the majority group. It also creates rather idiotic situations, such as a speech I saw in which a U.S. Congress woman referred to Nelson Mandela as an "African American." -- kainaw™ 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See Newspeak. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought the term meant civility, as in not being a dick. For instance instead of saying "Retards are too dumb to drive" you could say "Persons with Down's Syndrome do not have the cognitive capacity necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle." Both convey the information but one is much more dickish than the other. But, IANAD. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, you could perhaps do no better than begin with Jacques Barzun's observation-"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Above all, it's a form of condescension that presupposes a single-correct-perspective. It usually also involves an atrocious abuse of language, as 161.122 has illustrated. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Clio, you do realise that 161.122 was arguing for greater sensitivity in the use of language, right? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That second statement I took to be a perfect example of bad English, an ironic illustration, I supposed, of the tortured absurdities of 'political correctness.' Was it really meant to be taken seriously? Oh dear! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But presumably you see that it is preferable to the first one? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The first is stupid; the second ridiculous. There are ways of conveying meaning without being one or the other. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how about "Political correctness is the myth about how left-wing totalitarian academics oppress and brainwash freethinking victims into worshipping speech codes, feminism, and multiculturalism." ---Sluzzelin talk 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, it's no myth. It's alive and well, a creeping cancer. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have never visited Oz yet, but the supposed cancer never crept its way to where I lived and worked (including an American University campus during PC's supposed heyday in the 1990s). I never experienced speech code enforcement, just people who were usually decent and smart enough not to feel the need of making sweeping or thoughtless offensive remarks. Occasionally someone slips and says something, and it's embarassing, but no big deal beyond that. No Coleman Silks, no one got reprimanded let alone fired, no witchhunts, no scandal press. Yes, excesses have been and will continue to be reported, particularly in the speech code department (which is so easy to ridicule). But is this the distinctive social difference between now and when our grandparents lived? I'm glad people don't think it's cool to label minorities the way they used to anymore. Enough said. I'll agree to disagree. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's subtle, I'll admit. Very little overt or gross enforcement of terminology goes on, except in places like Wikipedia. :) Actually, the very term "political correctness" is pretty revealing. It suggests that the only reason you'd moderate your language is to avoid incurring the displeasure of those around you, and you don't give a fig for the feelings of the people you're actually talking about. Just because they're not within earshot doesn't mean the attitudinal ripples don't reach them. It's absolutely fine to choose forms of expression that have a lower risk of offending people, and I wish more people would do it. But it's not necessarily about anyone changing anything. It would never occur to me to refer to "dumb spastics", except in a discussion like this. Whatever terminology I do use would depend on the context I'm involved in. But some people normally do talk about "dumb spastics" among themselves, only moderating their language when they're talking to perceived authority figures, or the subjects of that term themselves. They're pretending to be sensitive when they're really not. They're "limelight sensitives". They're the ones who are being "politically correct". They're torn between caring far too much what their peers or authority figures might think of them, and far too little about the third parties, as demonstrated by the disparaging terms they use to refer to them when they're not around. Less of the first caring and more of the second caring might help here, and maybe then we'd see a diminution of this rotten phenomenon. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An issue I find with political correctness is that the words act as paint that doesn't affect the real meaning. You can say, "persons with Downs Syndrome do not have the cognitive capacity necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle", but you still mean "retards are too stupid to drive". You have only decorated it with long and neutral words. Politically correct speech doesn't affect your beliefs, only how you voice them. HYENASTE 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One could reframe that in the opposite way.

• You can say, "retards are too stupid to drive", but you still mean "persons with Downs Syndrome do not have the cognitive capacity necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle". You have only chosen short and unnecessarily offensive words.

I'm not saying the long version is necessarily the best way of putting it, I'm just making a counter-argument here. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the definition and merits of PC speech in general, I find the "long version" more precise and informative than the "short version". Not all people afflicted with mental retardation have Down syndrome. Driving safely requires, next to sensory and motoric capabilities, also cognitive capabilities, but being smart isn't one of them. Conversely, some smart people are lacking in some cognitive ability (for example, that of being able to judge the speed of an approaching object) needed for safe driving. The two versions do not have the same semantic content, and (lacking further context) do not convey the same meanings.  --Lambiam 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming of military units

I've always wondered this, and my wiki-fu is lacking today. How do they come up with the numbers in the names of military units. An example being the unit from Band of Brothers. Were there really 506 regiments of airborne infantry in WWII? 142.33.70.60 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there were not many US Army paratroop regiments or separate battalions. They were all numbered starting with 501. Why? "Ordinary" infantry regiments had never had numbers in the 500s range, so those were unused and distinctive. Ordinary infantry regiments normally had numbers from their previous WW1-era incarnations when there had been 4 regiments in a division, so there were gaps in WW2 when there were just 3 regiments in a division. The 28th Infantry Division (United States) was made up of the 109th to 112th Infantry Regiments in WWI but only the 109th, 110th and 112th in WWII. The "extra" 111th Regiment, no longer needed in the 28th Division under the new organisational structure, was sent to the Pacific. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time, the regiment is named for lineage purposes. The 1st US Infantry was named to take the lineage from just after the Revolutionary War (1791). New regiments without a lineage are named so there will be no confusion with a prior regiment. The 506th was named for this reason. If you take a look at Category:Regiments of the United States Army, you'll see how the numbers jump around, from regiments being disbanded, reassigned, redesignated, de-activated, or suspended. On a few occasions, they were named for counter-intel, mainly during the build-up to D-Day in WWII with the "Phantom Army". Naming it the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment (United States) gave it a unique name, without a lineage, and ensured that the name hadn't been used before.

Hope that helps. Leobold1 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Details about Columbia River

I have been trying to elevate Columbia River to Featured Article status for some time. A few facts, present in the article before I began editing it, remain elusive. Hoping somebody can help me find a citation for the following claims:

• Roughly 85% of basin is in U.S.
• final 300 miles of Columbia is Ore./Wash. border
• how much of earth's hydropower capacity is on the Columbia?
• Hanford Superfund cleanup expected to complete by when?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! -Pete (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

March 14

Service that is still missing on the internet

The only service that is still missing on the internet is baptism. Right? Mr.K. (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think doing surgery over the Internet would be a bit difficult. --Bowlhover 03:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult? yes. Unprecedented? No. HYENASTE 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To be baptized on-line you will need two baptized Christians to stand beside you to witness and support your baptism event. E-mail Rev. Walker with your request for baptism and the names of your two witness/support persons. Rev. Walker will process your request and set up an on-line baptism service especially for you.[21] —Keenan Pepper 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So is an online baptism as valid as a real-life one? Our non-theological answer is that the symbolism makes a reasonable case to consider an online baptism as valid as a real-life immersion of your physical body.[22] —Keenan Pepper 05:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, for at least some denominations, all you need is one human to perform the thing. Anything added to that (e.g., Rev. Walker's Internet participation) is window-dressing rather than an integral part of baptism. As far as Catholics are concerned, you need (1) flowing water (even if it just flows over the forehead) and (2) a Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"), and you've got a valid baptism. The person performing the baptism need not be Christian, or baptised: he may be pagan, heretic, or schismatic without affecting the validity of the ceremony. - Nunh-huh 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Online massage exists? Pfly (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by service. Most of the services listed on that disambiguation page are not available over the internet.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Insurance: what sort do stunt-people purchase?

Hello. Which insurance do people who do stunts purchase? If the person rescued had to pay for his or her rescue, which type of insurance covers that (let's say Tori Murden)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The short answers would be A expensive or can't get any, B special ie expensive.87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trans Holocaust victims: any details on transgender victims?

Is there any available information about transgender people who were affected (imprisoned, killed, experimented upon, etc) in the Nazi Holocaust? I can find brief mentions that say they were, but nothing more detailed than that. My suspicion is that from the Nazi perspective, they were just lumped with gays and lesbians which might make them harder to identify historically. --Ephilei (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Zita, death: 13th-century Saint Zita's clothes

Saint Zita died in 1272. Was she entombed in the clothes she wears this image? I have trouble believing that those clothes are over 500 years old. HYENASTE 05:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Zita died in 1272, so the clothes you see on her now would not have been those in which she was buried. There is some indirect evidence here that she was undressed in about the 1990s. It is an article about mummified saints' bodies, with a brief mention of the examination of St Vita's body, which revealed no marks of incisions on her body. The body of Bernadette of Lourdes is recorded to have been given a fresh habit on at least two occasions, so the re-dressing of a body is not in itself sacrilegious. The fact that Zita is dressed in a beautiful new dress is quite poignant when part of the story of her piety is that she was continually giving away the new clothes her employers gave her, so that poor people could be dressed. SaundersW (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, the clothes aren't part of the uncorruptedness? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

While Superman apparently transfers his invulnerability to his clothes by contact, saints don't seem to have that same kind of contagion. Anyway, why shouldn't a girl get new clothes from time to time so she looks her best, even when she's dead! SaundersW (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing a history PhD in the UK

How much does it cost? How do I go about getting funding? How do I find the best university for my particular subject? Can I do it 'remotely' rather than having to live in the university town? Help, please! 81.159.89.104 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Perhaps I should add that I graduated 23 years so am very out of touch about these things. 81.159.89.104 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Funding is distributed by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, but it may be difficult to get. The Open University doesn't appear to do a History PhD, but I recommend browsing it and other university sites for advice on applying for funding etc. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But oh dear, I have more questions. Do I have to do an MA before the PhD or can I just go straight into doing a PhD? (There's certainly enough material and research potential to make a very meaty thesis) Is there a time limit on how long it takes to complete the PhD? What is a ballpark figure for doing a three year PhD, including university fees etc but excluding living expenses? 81.159.89.104 (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some facts and figures on postgraduate degree fees at Cambridge, as an example. One way to choose a university is to look at recent books on the area that interests you and see where the authors are based. That does not guarantee that they want to take on students but it is a first approximation. Studying remotely, and even in another country, is possible, but you will need to consult the rules of the particular university. It has disadvantages: you are remote from the library, which is a particularly important resource in studying history, you are remote from your supervisor, which may be a problem if he/she is an elusive individual, and you are remote from fellow students, a very important and often under-rated resource. As a mature student you will have the disadvantage of having been away from study for a while, and of feeling maybe out of place as a student. You will have the great advantage of being much more mature in your attitude to life and having a lot more life experience and general knowledge and wisdom on which to draw. If you decide to go for it, it could change your life. Good luck! SaundersW (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my! Lots of questions! The time limits are generally 3 years minimum to 7 years maximum. You don't have to have an MA, I believe that some funding bodies require you to have either a first or upper second class honours, or an MA. SaundersW (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers, and bloody hell, they're expensive. Would a grant cover 100% of the fees, or would I have to stump up some? I have a first and an MA which probably isn't worth the paper it's written on as it's from Cambridge ...! Jasper33 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As for history PhDs, I have no idea what kind of funding you can get. But being an MA (Cantab) certainly opens doors to you. (Especially if it isn't the first thing you mention about yourself!) SaundersW (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

it wouldn't open any doors in academia as it's not a real qualification and would not count as a proper MA. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean that it counts as an MA, though just that it impresses people disproportionately. (In my experience, thus original research warning applies) SaundersW (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, outed myself there, didn't I, dammit! So much for craftily unlogging on to ask the questions ...! Jasper33 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

UK funding is pretty much all on a 1+3 basis now - in that you get funded to do a Masters and then if you show the talent for it, they will continue to fund you for another 3 years. If you are in the UK and doing the "right" sort of history, then look at Welcome Trust funding - it's a fantastic gravy train to get onto. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That first 'if' is a pretty big one. And sadly, no, not the 'right' sort of history for me. I think I'm going to have to start looking for a 'Kindly Gentleman', a la The Railway Children ... Jasper33 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to know if any of the respondents here on Humanities actually have a UK history PhD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.172 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

:: I don't have a history PhD mine is in another subject *but* my significant other's PhD is a history PhD from one of the top rated centres for her particularly area of history and I proof-read it for her and a couple of our friends who are also history graduates. If you are doing a history PhD you have an even bigger problem than I first thought. Writing a PhD in history is a very specialist thing, in my area there is no subtext really, you have your argument, you present it, you present your results. However in history, you are writing some far more involving because of their use of footnotes - those can add up to almost as much text as the main body. In addition, without being attached to a university, I don't see how you'd have the document access required for a history PhD. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry I'm confusing you with the problem in the section below. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is really relevant, mine is from a School of Mathematics. I have close connections with academics (who have PhDs and supervise PhD students) in economics, management, engineering and ancient history. All this is of course utterly unverifiable, as are any other statements made by anonymous internet users. You'll see that I have made no comments which refer specifically to history, except for the importance of a good library. All the rest refers to UK PhDs in general. If there is anybody who has a UK history PhD who can give even more specific information who is awake, able and willing to contribute, I am sure that they will. SaundersW (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frederick. I'm an archaeologist and part of my work regularly involves research, often historical, so I should be okay with the methodologies. I take your point about the document access - I've been interested in my proposed topic for a while now and have gathered most of the available published work already (there's not a lot about); luckily for me I have access to primary archives and people for taking oral histories. I meant 'remotely' in the sense of not having to have residence during a full-time course. Jasper33 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By residence, do you mean live by the campus? that's fine? it's not uncommon just to pop in every couple of months to see your supervisor and do the rest by email. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - just the sort of thing I wanted to hear! Jasper33 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A (successful) contemporary PhD student of mine lived in the USA most of the time and spent spells of a fortnight or so on site for supervision.

For what it is worth, this is my analysis of the support you need for completing a PhD.

1. Somebody with the subject knowledge to tell you what is new, what is interesting, what is relevant, what is counted as evidence.

2. Somebody who can tell you what a PhD in your subject actually looks like (structure, arguments, references, etc)

3. Pastoral support. It can get very lonely, and there should be moments where you question what you know, how you know it, what reality is, etc. You need somebody to say that these will pass.

These do not need to be provided by the same person. SaundersW (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wise advice. Thank-you. Jasper33 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My PhD/Doctorate question

Can I just write a doctorate and present it to a university body for 'assessment'?. Does it cost money to present it.87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could try, but there are numerous bureaucratic hoops they make you jump through first. The usual process, at least here, is a 4-year BA, a one or two-year MA, and a 6-year PhD, 2 of which consist of classwork, one of preparing for a Major Field Exam, and the rest in writing a thesis. It's different everywhere but the basic point is that it takes A Very Long Time. So if you're not a student and you haven't suffered the previous six years (or whatever), you probably won't get very far. I imagine they would actually just toss it in the trash. (But naturally, you can publish whatever you want outside academia!) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally you have to be registered as a student for the course of your thesis. The idea is that you carry out what is essentially an apprenticeship in research. Some Universities will grant an honorary degree for the achievement of a work of scholarship which they regard as equivalent to a degree, especially if the author is an alumnus/a of that university. SaundersW (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the UK is a thesis effectively sufficient if I can get it accepted?87.102.83.204 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

yes but you'd have to do your viva (an oral defence of the work in front of 3 experts) to get the qualification. Having said that, getting a university to just "accept" your PhD is not going to be an easy process - first they have no idea of the quality and second are going to wonder why they didn't screw £3000 X 3 years of bench fees out of you. Moreover, if you are doing it "cold" on your own and with no guidance, the chances are that it's not going to be of an acceptable standard. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a Doctor of Philosophy article that contains outline information on admission requirements and funding in various countries . Broadly speaking, to be awarded a Ph.D. you have to produce a "thesis or dissertation consisting of a suitable body of original academic research, which is in principle worthy of publication in a peer-refereed context". As has been said, you are very unlikely to be able to do this for the first time without some degree of guidance and input from an expert in the field, who acts as your advisor. But experts are busy people, so you have to convince a relevant expert and the establishment that employs them that it is worth spending their time on helping you. And part of the deal may be that you choose a research topic that is aligned with your advisor's current research. A relevant MA or Honours BA is one piece of evidence that you can present that shows you have the appropriate background and outlook to successfully complete a Ph.D.; personal recommendation is another piece of evidence that may be required. Your best way to get more information is to contact one or two prospective universeties, tell them about your background and ask some specific questions. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks both of you - you confirmed what I thought.87.102.83.204 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's not just that you won't be able to probably "do it right", it's also that the definition of "do it right" is a little different for every advisor. I have multiple advisors and each of them has a somewhat different notion of what the final product should look like to be a good thesis, and the final product is an amalgamation of their feedback. If I had never talked to them and never worked with them and never really got any feedback on it then it's not likely what I would produce would look like something they wanted. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kind of pisses on the idea of it being 'your PhD' when you just have to do what the advsiser tells you? Maybe I've just got a problem with authority figures? 87.102.83.204 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it still yours, because it's still you who writes it and drives it's development - but your supervisor is there to keep you on track and make sure the quality is there. Sure you can take no notice, but you are likely to turn a complete steamer that gets rejected and then you've just wasted 3 years of your life. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, 3 years is nothing (smile).87.102.83.204 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Beastorn report: see archives

I have completed my research on JackofOz's enigmatic Beastorn. Interested editors with sufficient security clearance may view it (eyes only) in the archives.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You should take some rest. Perhaps a darkened room? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps man was never meant to know the truth of the Beastorn. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny because the name rings a bell for me too. Perhaps some sort of genetic memory??87.102.83.204 (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul de Lagarde

I don't suppose too many people read the work of Paul de Lagarde now. I know him as a 'cultural pessimist', one of the roots of the Nazi movement. I must say that I find him and others of his kind quite intriguing and would like to know why he was so disenchanted with Bismarck's work in German unification? Why did he take such a negative view of the new Germany? Doctor Claude (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)